Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Basutoland (Expatriate Civil Servants)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg leave to present a humble Petition from the Basutoland Expatriate Civil Service Association praying that this honourable House will take steps to obtain from Her Majesty's Government an assurance that when provision is made for premature retirement in the progress towards independence of Basutoland no distinction will be drawn between the designated and non-designated expatriate civil servants on the grounds that there are special circumstances

"respecting application of Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1963–64 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—


1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—


1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against"


—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1963–64.

in Basutoland whereby a civil servant prematurely retired has under law no right for continued residence in that country.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1963."—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9

Returned ordered,
of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1963–64."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 31)

Returned ordered,

Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1963–64 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee


sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1963–64, were referred by the Committee of Selection to Committees on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:

And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1963–64, showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent;
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to: and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of the Prorogation."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1963–64 with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
Return "of the Select Committees appointed in Session 1963–64, with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expenses

of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Return ordered,
of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1963–64, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
for Session 1963–64, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of Bills considered in relation to their principle and the number of Estimates and Matters considered by the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Matters considered by the Welsh Grand Committee, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates and Matters considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate and Matter, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

Commonwealth Development Corporation

Mr. Leavey: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what arrangements exist for liaison between his Department and the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and what


financial assistance he provides to the Corporation to enable them to provide training places in their enterprises overseas on a scale larger than they could justify on the basis of their own financial terms of reference.

The Secretary for Technical Cooperation (Mr. Robert Carr): Liaison is ensured by personal contact and correspondence between my officials and those of the Corporation. My Department does not provide financial assistance to the Corporation, but is ready to consider, in appropriate cases, the use of its training facilities overseas.

Mr. Leavey: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the existing arrangements enable him and his Department to ensure that the C.D.C. organisation on the ground can in turn make the best use of its facilities?

Mr. Carr: I am certainly ready to consider requests from C.D.C. for this help, provided, of course, it is also satisfactory to the Governments of the territories in which it is operating. I am proposing to start discussions with the general manager of C.D.C. to make sure that we are doing all that we can in this field.

Agricultural Advisory Services (Posts)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether the extra posts added to the establishments of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the Scottish Agricultural Inspectorate to cater for overseas needs have now been filled.

Mr. R. Carr: One of the six extra posts for the Scottish Advisory Services has been filled and it is expected that 15 out of the 24 extra posts for the National Agricultural Advisory Service will be filled shortly.

Mr. Loveys: Does not my right hon. Friend consider this slow rate of recruitment somewhat unsatisfactory? May I ask whether he can give any special reason for this and what steps he intends to take to improve the position?

Mr. Carr: I have certainly been disappointed at the rate of recruitment. We must bear in mind that this was a new idea and, therefore, may have been a little slow in attracting attention, and also

that last year there was pretty severe competition for agricultural graduates, for example, from industry. The fact that we now have 15 out of 24 of the N.A.A.S. posts on the point of being filled will show that recruitment is now going faster.

Commonwealth Educational Co-operation Scheme

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what proposals he has for expanding Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the work of the Commonwealth Educational Co-operation Scheme.

Mr. R. Carr: It would not be right for me to announce, in advance of the conference, the proposals we shall be making at the Third Commonwealth Education Conference which is to be held at Ottawa in August. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that these proposals will be directed to the expansion and improvement of this most valuable scheme.

Miss Vickers: Has my right hon. Friend seen the memorandum sent in by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and myself on behalf of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth? If so, were the suggestions welcome and will he see that some of them are carried out?

Mr. Carr: I have seen that memorandum and I can assure my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and their colleagues that I have studied it personally. I know that it is very much valued and I can assure them that the matters raised will be properly discussed.

Dr. A. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some school and university authorities in this country differ in their enthusiasm for this type of work? Will he urge upon them the extreme importance of seconding their people, sometimes their best people, for this kind of active service, and will he ensure, if he wants really good people to go away, that their security of tenure, their salary rights and their rights of increment are maintained and that they do not lose their place in the line over here by doing this very important work?

Mr. Carr: I shall bear in mind all the points. I think that the enthusiasm and response of educational establishments on the whole has been very good, although, of course, it varies. I have personally visited eight or nine universities in the last six or nine months, and officials of my Department are constantly making such visits with this object in mind, because we think that personal contact is the best way to achieve it.

Sabah and Sarawak (Voluntary Workers)

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many young volunteers from this country are working in Sabah and Sarawak; and how many will be going there under the programme for 1964–65 and 1965–66.

Mr. R. Carr: 23. Under the 1964–65 programme, 34 volunteers have been recruited for Sabah and Sarawak. The numbers for 1965–66 have not yet been settled.

Mr. Turner: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that this is an extremely disappointing total, bearing in mind the vital importance of these two territories in South-East Asia at the present time? Has he any other ideas for encouraging recruitment?

Mr. Carr: My main ideas are to increase the numbers of volunteers who are leaving this country. That we are doing. The numbers have risen from about 300 to 800 this year, going up to about 1,300 in a year's time. I hope that these important countries will share in that increased total in the future.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my right hon. Friend consider the idea that persons serving with Voluntary Service Overseas could serve for a period shorter than the calendar 12 months?

Mr. Carr: A few of the cadet volunteers do serve for a shorter period, but I am afraid that service of less than a year is really not very satisfactory, as these people take a few months to get acclimatised. On the contrary, what we are hoping is to increase the number of people who are prepared to serve in the future for two years rather than one. As I say, a few can serve for nine months, but I think that to shorten it

beyond that would result in a lack of useful work?

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend say exactly what is done by career officers, and other people like that, to create interest in the scheme in schools all over the country?

Mr. Carr: This is a job for the voluntary societies, because we do not send out these young volunteers under any Government agency. The Government provide the voluntary societies with valuable financial and' other support and encouragement, but it is for the voluntary societies to undertake this work, and I know that they are doing a lot about it. In addition, we are preparing a recruiting film which will, I think, assist them in that way.

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many British personnel are currently serving in Sabah and Sarawak under the Overseas Service Aid scheme; and whether this number is likely to increase or decrease over the next year.

Mr. R. Carr: There are about 295 and 375 such officers in Sabah and Sarawak, respectively. It is impossible to forecast how many of these officers will exercise their right to give notice of retirement in the coming year, but the Governments concerned wish to retain the services of British officers and we shall do our best to keep up the numbers by fresh recruitment where necessary.

Mr. Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the threat to these territories and of the fact that vast parts of these territories are being infiltrated for the first time by agitators from Indonesia, it is absolutely vital that the number of officers available in these territories should be greatly increased over the numbers available in the past, in order to counter this influence? Can he give an assurance that we are making every effort, with other Commonwealth countries, to recruit further personnel?

Mr. Carr: While I agree with almost everything that my hon. Friend says, I am sure he will be the first to realise that the first step is for the Governments of the territories concerned to


decide how many people they want. I can only say that the more they decide on the better, and we shall certainly do our best to fill the vacancies.

Doctors (Recruitment)

Mr. Foley: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he has yet received a report from the Medical Advisory Committee on recruitment of doctors for service overseas.

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what recent improvement there has been in the recruitment of doctors for overseas service; if he has yet received the report of the special panel of the Porritt Committee studying this problem; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Carr: I have received, and am studying urgently, the valuable recommendations of my Medical Advisory Committee on this subject. A recent and continuing drive by my Department has led to some increase in the number of doctors recruited for service overseas, but the demand from the developing countries has grown even faster.

Mr. Foley: Will the Secretary for Technical Co-operation indicate how many requests are outstanding, and for how long they have been outstanding? Can he also tell us whether he has been in touch with the requesting Governments to indicate the nature of and reason for the delay? And has he been in touch with any Western European countries to see what they might do to assist in this programme?

Mr. Carr: Unfilled vacancies stood at the record figure of 233 in the middle of this year and were considerably higher than they were a year earlier. I am afraid that at the moment I do not have the exact figure for a year earlier to hand. This is a very serious matter. I think that we have made clear to the countries requesting these doctors what our difficulties are, and in regard to our remaining dependent territories we are certainly making use of recruiting facilities outside the country—in Holland, for example, and Scandinavia. Of course, once a territory becomes independent we cannot recruit foreign

doctors to go to that territory; that is a matter for the independent country concerned.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, while we do not hold him personally responsible for the shortage of doctors in the United Kingdom, that we think that this is a disgraceful situation? Is he aware that very probably more help is being given by doctors from the under-developed world serving for further experience in United Kingdom hospitals than we are able to give in the medical field at the moment?

Mr. Carr: I am aware of that, and we are all grateful, as we must be, for the doctors from overseas serving here. I hope it is true that they are getting training which will be of benefit to them when they go back to their countries. I hope, too, that we do not underestimate the value of the fact that here is technical co-operation flowing in the opposite direction. But that does not alter the fact that I would like to see this country doing more.

Mr. K. Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend say how many outstanding requests for doctors there are from the under-developed countries? Are we near to meeting them?

Mr. Carr: As I said a moment ago, there are now 233 unfilled vacancies. The numbers we have been able to recruit in the first six months of this year have been 69 compared with 112 for the whole of last year. There is therefore some increase, but nothing like the number needed.

Economic Studies

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he is sponsoring economic studies of the development needs of overseas countries; and whether he is able to recruit sufficient economists for overseas service to meet the requests received from developing countries.

Mr. R. Carr: My Department has now arranged to finance the appointment of three economists each at Oxford and Cambridge, who will be available for overseas assignments and, while at home, will engage in research on the economic problems of developing countries. My


Department also provides research grants for overseas institutes engaged in such studies. Economists are in great demand, and very difficult to recruit for service overseas.

Mr. Holland: I welcome the new appointments at Oxford and Cambridge, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that these still are insufficient to meet the very considerable demand, and would he consider expanding the scheme not only at Oxbridge but at the other universities as well?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. This is a new scheme and, I think, a hopeful one. We must get it going, and when we have had a little experience of it I will certainly consider whether we can extend it to the other universities.

Mr. Foley: Can the Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation say whether, in sponsoring economic studies, he also intends to enlarge this to some kind of training job for people from the various ministries of economic development in the developing countries?

Mr. Carr: Rather germane to the hon. Member's question was one of the proposals discussed at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, which has been submitted by the Prime Ministers, for further study by officials. There was talk of a special institute; certainly, if such an institute were set up, training in this economic development and planning would feature very largely in its curriculum.

Nigeria (University Staff)

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation, in view of the fact that Ibadan University and other universities in the Federation of Nigeria are having difficulty in recruiting and retaining British staff, if Her Majesty's Government will consider taking steps to offer additional remuneration to individuals either in post or wanting to take posts in these universities.

Mr. R. Carr: I am very conscious of this problem, about which representations have been made to my Department by two of the universities in Nigeria. The British delegation at the

Commonwealth Education Conference at Ottawa will have something to say about the general question of assistance of this kind and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me beyond this at present.

Miss Vickers: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great advantage for the individuals to have their undergraduate courses in their own country at the beginning and before coming overseas? With this in mind, will he see that this matter is thoroughly discussed at the Ottawa Conference so that we do not have similar difficulties with other universities in obtaining staff?

Mr. Carr: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of training in the countries concerned at undergraduate level. The fact that I cannot give much more information at the moment does not, I assure the House, mean that we are unaware of the importance of this question.

Dr. Thompson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at one Nigerian university a very senior member of the staff and chairman of an important public commission who was trying to get back to this country was offered an assistant lectureship? Is he aware that this is one of the problems facing people who go out to service in universities abroad? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge on British universities that experience abroad can be valuable and that they should not discriminate against people who have spent some of the good years of their lives at these universities?

Mr. Carr: I am certain that expressions of opinion such as that of the hon. Member are a valuable means of persuading people and I appreciate them. I am sure that hon. Members with contacts outside the House can be missioners for this cause and hope very much that they will be.

Technical Assistance

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what information he has as to how Great Britain's efforts in the field of technical assistance compare with other leading donor countries.

Mr. R. Carr: Expressed in terms of money the United Kingdom is the third


largest donor of bilateral technical assistance after the United States and France, and is the second largest contributor to the United Nations Voluntary Programmes.

Mr. Goodhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whilst we all recognise that there is still ample scope for giving help in these matters, it is encouraging to know that this country is doing so well? Could he indicate how we stand in terms of sending experts overseas and students coming into this country?

Mr. Carr: Genuine international comparisons are difficult, but in sending experts overseas we are probably second only to France. In the matter of receiving students in this country, certainly in relation to our size, we are second to no one.

Mr. Fell: Can my right hon. Friend say how de Gaulle's France does it?

Mr. Carr: That is better a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I doubt whether even he can see into the General's mind.

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, what action he takes to co-ordinate the technical assistance provided by his Department with the financial aid provided by Great Britain and with the aid programmes of other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. R. Carr: A continuous exchange of information takes place between my Department and the overseas departments regarding proposals for financial and technical assistance so that where appropriate they can be offered in conjunction. Co-ordination with the aid programmes of other Commonwealth countries is principally carried out by exchange of information between Commonwealth ambassadors and High Commissioners in overseas capitals.

Mr. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, reverting to the interesting proposals at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference for development projects in individual Commonwealth countries, may I ask whether he is satisfied that his Department alone is responsible for the immense amount of co-ordination which will be necessary to carry this proposal to a successful conclusion?

Mr. Carr: The machinery required for the development of these Commonwealth projects is also under discussion on a Commonwealth basis, and I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said will be taken into account.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a group of Canadian teachers were in London a week or so ago on their way to various countries in Africa under a vacation course scheme similar to the one which we run, the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and I could find no official arrangements for them here and no arrangements to coordinate the Canadian scheme with our own scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that matter?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I certainly will.

Indian Institute of Technology

Mr. Bradley: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how much assistance, in terms of money and number of teaching staff, has been provided to the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi.

Mr. R. Carr: Up to 30th June, 1964, the cost had amounted to £440,000 of which £363,000 came from British public funds and £77,000 from the Trust Fund established by British industry to provide British equipment. Eight British teaching staff are now serving, and five other British staff have been appointed to advise the Institute and to supervise workshops.

Mr. Bradley: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he can say that it is his intention to continue to provide assistance to this Institute?

Mr. Carr: I can assure the House that it is very much our intention to go on providing assistance. To take the example of equipment, the Indian Government and authorities know that when we started on this project with them we allocated £650,000 for equipment. Only £363,000 has yet been supplied. I should like to pay tribute to the great part played by British industry, because I believe that it is going to find at least half that sum.

India (Technical Assistance)

Mr. Matthews: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what scale of technical assistance he expects to make available to India in the current year; and how this compares with the previous two years.

Mr. R. Carr: My Department's expenditure on technical assistance to India in 1962–63 was of the order of £525,000. My best estimate is that the out-turn for 1963–64 will be about 25 per cent. higher and that there should be a further increase of about 33 per cent. in 1964–65.

Mr. Matthews: In thanking my right hon. Friend for these figures, may I ask whether he would say that this aid is adequate for British industry to participate effectively in India's economic development?

Mr. Carr: The first criterion is and must be what India wants, but within that criterion it has provided valuable opportunities which I know have been very much appreciated by the India Government for British industry to participate. The two best examples are the steelworks at Durgapur and the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi of which we have just been speaking.

Government Servants (Pensions and Seniority)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether persons in Government service such as teachers and administrators who choose to serve part of their careers overseas suffer any loss of seniority or pension rights by so doing.

Mr. R. Carr: Under the existing standing arrangements for seconding civil servants, and the separate special arrangements for teachers, pensions rights and seniority can be preserved.

Mr. Longden: I am grateful for that Answer, but will my right hon. Friend recall that some weeks ago in another place a noble Lord stated categorically that teachers going overseas had difficulty in getting back, had no pension rights, and lost seniority? Is he aware that this misinformation was not corrected by his noble Friend who wound up the debate? Would my right hon. Friend

give what he has said today the widest possible publicity in the proper quarters?

Mr. Carr: I will certainly see that that is done.

Mr. Wade: The right hon. Gentleman said "can be preserved". Does he mean that in fact they are preserved?

Mr. Carr: We shall get into a lot of discussion of the meaning of words, but I think that I mean "are preserved". There are slight differences of circumstances in every appointment, but the provision exists and I assure the House that my Department does everything it can to make the provision known and applied. Where it is applied they are preserved.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of anxiety and doubt about this? How many teachers went overseas last year whose rights were preserved in terms of pension and superannuation?

Mr. Carr: I cannot give the figures off the cuff because so many teachers who went overseas were recruited from channels not served by my Department, but here again I value the matter being aired in the House in this way. It is the best way of making it known.

Mrs. Slater: Is every local authority allowed freedom to do this, or has the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend in the Ministry of Education sent out instructions that pension rights must be preserved? This is an important factor, plus status and appointment when they come back.

Mr. Carr: There is a scheme and it is known to all education authorities. I am sure that I am right in saying that they do not need any special instructions from my right hon. Friend to operate the scheme, but I will certainly look into the point to make sure that I am right in what I am saying.

Commonwealth Countries (Development Projects)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what action is to be taken by his Department to further the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' declaration that development projects should be launched in individual Commonwealth countries.

Mr. R. Carr: Consultations in which my Department is playing a full part, have already begun between officials of Commonwealth Governments on implementing this proposal.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say what method of consultation is used and give some idea of the number of projects likely to be discussed by the end of the year?

Mr. Carr: The form of consultation at the moment is that there is the Commonwealth Liaison Committee here in London. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, certain outline suggestions were put to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers by our Prime Minister, and the Commonwealth Governments are now considering these and they may wish to put forward suggestions of their own. We will get on with this as quickly as we can, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to make an announcement at the end of the year.

Mr. Foley: Are these development projects envisaged on a bilateral basis, or is the concept one of trying to develop Commonwealth action and Commonwealth teams to meet the specific needs of each country?

Mr. Carr: The difficult answer is that it is a mixture of both. We believe that one country could take the lead in management, but we also hope that personnel and financial contributions will be on a multi-country basis; in other words, a genuine Commonwealth basis.

Overseas Service

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will arrange for persons recruited by his Department for service overseas to attend a brief course prior to departure to assist in preparing them for their new duties and environment.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps the Government is taking to ensure that British experts, teachers and other persons recruited by the Department of Technical Co-operation to serve in the developing countries are given guidance to help them to fit in as effectively as possible with the social, cultural and political environments in those countries.

Mr. R. Carr: Within the last 12 months my Department has conducted three courses each lasting two to three days for a total of some 200 persons, mainly teachers, going to East Africa. Arrangements have now been made for a substantial proportion of persons recruited by the D.T.C. to attend courses organised by "Oversea Service". During an initial experimental period of 18 months beginning in October, I hope 600 persons, including some wives, will attend.

Miss Vickers: Is any encouragement given to these people to learn some of the language of the country to which they are sent?

Mr. Carr: That will certainly arise, but I will take a special note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Loveys: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what action is taken by his Department to make known in universities, training establishments and schools the openings for service overseas.

Mr. R. Carr: My Department is closely in touch with appointments boards of universities and advanced training establishments and also supplies them with literature on opportunities overseas. It does not maintain such close contacts with schools but helps, for example, the Commonwealth Institute in providing speakers for their talks for schools on the needs of developing countries.

Mr. Loveys: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to get far better recruitment in this expanding field than we are doing at present? Would not he consider some further measure of promoting interest in overseas work among children still at school so as to get it into their minds at an early age?

Mr. Carr: There is a limit to the number of contacts which my Department can make. In the schools this is primarily the rôle of voluntary societies which are concerned with obtaining recruits among young volunteers to go overseas. As I said in reply to an earlier Question, we hope that shortly they will be provided with a good recruiting film.

Commonwealth Medical Conference

Mr. Leavey: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps his Department will be taking in preparation for next year's projected Commonwealth Medical Conference.

Mr. R. Carr: The Commonwealth Liaison Committee is already considering, in accordance with the communiqué issued by the Prime Ministers, the holding of a medical conference during 1965. If Commonwealth Governments agree to this, detailed preparations will need to be made as to the part which the British Government are to play, and the Departments concerned, including my Department, will undertake these.

Mr. Leavey: While, generally speaking, I think it is recognised that notwithstanding the heavy pressures on our educational resources we have responded fairly generously to the needs of the developing countries, may I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend, with reference to the medical services which will be discussed at this Conference, that we shall use our best endeavours to match our performance in the educational field with our performance in the medical field?

Mr. Carr: I can assure my hon. Friend that what he has said will be seriously noted both by myself and by my right hon. Friends concerned.

Trainees

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps are being taken to make available sufficient accommodation in this country for the increasing number of trainees coming here from the developing countries under the sponsorship of his Department.

Mr. R. Carr: I am responsible directly for only about 1,600 of the 50,000 trainees from developing countries in Britain. The British Council is responsible for assisting them to find suitable accommodation and each receives a maintenance allowance adequate to cover reasonable accommodation charges. The Government have initiated a programme, administered by the British Council, for increasing the accommodation available to overseas students and I do not think it

is necessary for me to take separate measures for those students sponsored by my Department.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While recognising that my right hon. Friend's Department is not exclusively concerned with this matter, may I ask him how much extra accommodation he expects to be provided under the scheme which he has mentioned?

Mr. Carr: The current position is that 65 schemes of hostel development have been approved which will provide over 3,000 extra places. Others are under consideration, and by next autumn about 1,000 extra places are expected to be available.

Council for Volunteers Overseas

Lord Balniel: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, how many meetings have been held by the Council for Volunteers Overseas; when the Council will start offering advice to the voluntary societies and to his Department on the further expansion of this scheme; and whether the Council will be issuing regular reports on their work.

Mr. R. Carr: The Council for Volunteers Overseas has met once on 27th May. I understand that it will meet again in November. It is, of course, for the Council itself to determine how and when it will proffer advice and what reports it will make on its work.

Lord Balniel: Whilst recognising that the responsibility rests in the hands of the Council, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is the very widest interest in this matter, especially among universities? Will he do his utmost to encourage them to give the widest publicity to their schemes? In connection with the further expansion of voluntary service overseas, is it within the powers of the Council to consider extending this so as to make it a Commonwealth scheme?

Mr. Carr: Taking the last point first, so far as I know, it is certainly within the powers of the Council—the terms of reference are very wide—to consider and to make suggestions about any point, including the one made by my hon. Friend. I attended the first meeting of the Council and I sensed the great enthusiasm


among its members, and I am sure it will take appropriate action in relation to the general public interest in this subject

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this Council was launched by the Prime Minister himself in this House, with a tremendous fanfare of trumpets, about the sense of urgency which the Government felt about the kind of work which it could do? Are two meetings in 12 months a sign of the sense of urgency which they feel?

Mr. Carr: In the first place, this is not the Government's Council. It is an independent Council. There is a great sense of urgency among its members, and the House would be wrong—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises this—to imagine that its members are promoting its purpose only when they actually sit in Council meetings. The executive work is done by the Lockwood Committee. There is much activity now being undertaken by this new Council, apart from actually attending meetings.

Developing Countries (Research Assistance)

Lord Balniel: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will make a statement on the assistance provided by his Department for developing countries in the field of research.

Mr. R. Carr: I am publishing today a White Paper giving an account of the work of my Department in this field.

Lord Balniel: Could my right hon. Friend say what fields of research he is especially encouraging, and will he give particular attention to the possibility of encouraging research in economic matters because, although this is not the most dramatic form of research, it is probably the most useful to the underdeveloped countries?

Mr. Carr: At present, the allocation of resources in research has a somewhat historical ring about it. About two-thirds goes on natural resources and about 20 per cent. goes on health research. This is very important, of course, but I should like to see increasing attention given in future to economic and social matters. Perhaps the announcement I made about extra

economists at two universities may be a first step in this direction.

Sir B. Stross: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned medical research and he gave the figure of 20 per cent. Is he aware that, unless we staff our own medical research centres better than we are doing, it will very often not be possible to find staff who can be spared and allowed to go overseas for two or three years? Will he bear this in mind and realise that it is quite crucial if we are to play our part properly?

Mr. Carr: I shall certainly take note of such part of that question as is within my responsibility. What we can do and what we are beginning to do is, while admitting that resources are scarce, to make the maximum use of those which exist.

Northern Rhodesia (Non-designated Officers)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will reconsider the non-designation of Messrs. Lawrence, Kenny and Kiggel, administrative officers of the Ministry of Labour and Mines in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. R. Carr: I have sought further information from the Governor of Northern Rhodesia regarding all three cases. As a result, I am now able to designate Mr. Kenny under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. My reconsideration of the cases of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Kiggell is not yet quite complete, but I think that I ought to say that it appears likely that I shall have to decide that they remain ineligible for designation.

Mr. Wall: I thank my right hon. Friend for the first part of his Answer, but is it not a fact that all three of these officers are in a salary scale which allows them to be designated and the reason given for their non-designation is the failure of the Northern Rhodesian Government to apply to the Secretary of State on their promotion? This was a failure of a Government, and it ought not to result in hardship to the officers concerned.

Mr. Carr: I understand that that applies to Mr. Kenny, and that is why I have now been able to designate him.


As I am at present informed, it does not seem as though it applies to the other two cases, but I should like to complete my study of the facts before being categorical.

Malaya (Voluntary Service)

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many young volunteers from this country are working in Malaya; and how many will be going there under the programme for 1964–65 and 1965–66.

Mr. R. Carr: 17. Under the 1964–65 programme, 19 volunteers have been recruited for Malaya. The numbers for 1965–66 have not yet been settled.

Mr. Harvey: May I, first, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal approach to his important post and the great importance which he plainly attaches to engendering all-party support for and interest in the work of his Department? But is not the answer which he has given me as disappointing to him as it is to the House? What can be done to improve on these figures?

Mr. Carr: I should greatly like to see more volunteers going to Malaya. The situation depends, first, on requests for suitable vacancies from Malaya, and we should remember also that the graduate programme is only now getting into its stride. I hope that there will be an expansion in about a year.

Miss Herbison: Does the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is the closest co-ordination between the work of the students and young people who go out and the work of the British Council in Malaya?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Lady can be reassured on that point because the British Council plays a very large part in keeping in touch with the volunteers in their jobs and thus is well aware of what we are doing in relation to what its own representatives are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES

British Council (Newspapers and Periodicals)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what would be the additional cost of sending

by air all newspapers, magazines and periodicals to British Council reading rooms overseas.

Mr. R. Carr: The additional cost of sending by airmail all the newspapers, magazines and periodicals which are already being sent to British Council reading rooms overseas would be approximately £110,000 a year.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of having these reading rooms as up-to-date as possible and not stocked with antique magazines and newspapers? Would my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the British Council, be prepared to revise the list of those newspapers and periodicals that are sent by airmail?

Mr. Carr: I will certainly look into that suggestion. My hon. Friend should realise that the extra figure I gave for sending by air represents something like a doubling of the present cost and could not be undertaken lightly.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he is doing his best to spread British publications of all kinds all over the world, the Postmaster-General is doing his best to raise the postage rates on these periodicals and books? Will he get in touch with his right hon. Friend and raise this matter with him?

Mr. Carr: Interesting though that suggestion is, I think it is another question. I have been very concerned in this matter, and I think it is fair to say that the postage rates of this country do not compare badly with the postage rates applying in other countries which also try to spread their information.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that newspapers which are a week or more old are not very attractive reading for the public?

Mr. Carr: I will certainly do so. The British Council is more concerned with magazines and journals of information than newspapers, where speed is not quite so important. At the same time, I realise that it matters.

Mr. Paget: Is not Government postage a transfer from one pocket to another?
Are not these papers carried by our own airlines?

Mr. Carr: That is another question.

Activities

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what provisions have been made this year for increased activities by the Overseas Information Services.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how far the proposals for developing the Overseas Information Services recently outlined have now been implemented.

Mr. R. Carr: Our overseas information expenditure on recurrent activities, excluding non-recurrent capital expenditure, is £25 million in this financial year; the comparable figure for the year 1963–64 was £23·4 million. Further developments are being undertaken this year particularly in the work of the British Council, with special reference to English language teaching; in the production of television and other films; in the programme for bringing visitors to this country; and in the British Information Services. With permission, I am arranging for a table analysing the increased expenditure to be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the expansion of these services is very helpful to us in making friends for Britain, but could he consider more co-operation with organisations such as the British Travel and Holidays Association which has branches throughout the world and could co-operate with his Department effectively in this field?

Mr. Carr: Certainly increasing the number of visitors coming here is one of our main objectives. It is going ahead pretty quickly. I have no doubt that there are new things that we can learn about it.

Mr. Mayhew: While the expansion is welcome, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is some danger of the services becoming a bit stereotyped and official? Is he also aware that overseas publicity and visits to and from this country are sometimes less effective when they are formal and official than when carried

out by private organisations and individuals who sometimes deserve his support?

Mr. Carr: I also have been reading a certain newspaper in the last few days. I have inquired into this matter and I find that visits by undergraduate groups and so forth are nearly always included in these tours whenever this can be managed. I will look into the problem.

Mr. Longden: While I am grateful for the increase in this expenditure, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that this is an immensely valuable arm of the defence service? Can he persuade the Government to go still further in the near future?

Mr. Carr: My colleagues and I managed to obtain a considerable increase in expenditure last year. I do not think that on this occasion I had better look forward.

Following is the table:


MAIN ITEMS OF INCREASED EXPENDITURE ON OVERSEAS INFORMATION, 1964–65


Activity
(£'000) Increase in expenditure


British Council
901


of which:

English language teaching

254


English language teaching TV films

24


Expansion in new areas

282


Personal contacts

150


Printed word

92


Television films
176



Other films
112



Sponsored visitors
171



B.I.S. Offices
160



B.B.C. broadcasting
62

GENERAL ELECTION (SOUND AND TELEVISION BROADCASTS)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for the television and sound political broadcasts during the three weeks prior to the next General Election; and what steps will be taken to ensure as far as is possible that a balance is held between all sections of the community.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I have placed in the Library a copy of the statement issued on 25th February, which shows the broadcasting opportunities for those qualifying.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has the Prime Minister seen the excellent articles dealing with this matter which appeared in The Guardian, and, if so, did he note the observations made by the late President Kennedy and by Mr. Edward Murrow with regard to the points raised in my Question? If he has studied those matters, will he give an undertaking that he will apply the lessons so that all sections of the community have a share in what takes place on television, ensuring that everything is not dealt with by certain sections only?

The Prime Minister: These arrangements have been agreed between the parties. As Prime Minister, I am not responsible. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman information. As regards minor parties, the major parties have said that they would support such broadcasts under certain conditions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the statement which I have made.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What steps are being taken to ensure that a balance is held between the different factions in the Labour Party? [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Amid the joy, I must be able to make myself heard. Mr. Lipton.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that the more popular radio and television broadcasts are not unduly interfered with by political broadcasts?

The Prime Minister: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the special party arrangements just prior to the General Election, it is supremely important that the B.B.C. and Independent Television both on television and in news programmes should now keep complete impartiality between the parties, not by innuendo or implication trying to doctor the news in any way? Should not this be a supreme duty between now and the General Election?

The Prime Minister: This must be the objective. I hope that it will be achieved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEVISION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements for a closed-circuit television to take the

place of the annunciators within the rooms of the House and for a television set in a large room so that people unable to be accommodated in the Visitors' Gallery may see and hear the proceedings.

The Prime Minister: A technical study has been made of the possibility of replacing the annunciators by closed circuit television fulfilling exactly the same function, but to introduce television in any form raises issues which will require further consideration. The second part of the Question refers to the relaying by television of the proceedings of this House. This is quite a different matter on which I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert) on 19th November, 1963, and to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on 12th December, 1963.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a growing interest in the proceedings of this House, especially when big issues are being debated, and does he think that it is satisfactory, in the second half of the 20th century, that hundreds of people who desire to see the House at work should not have an opportunity? Will he reconsider his reply in order that the hundreds of people visiting the House may have an opportunity, in a room set apart for the purpose, of seeing and hearing it at work?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down to me again in November

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that if and when television is introduced into this Chamber it will be kept going for all-night sittings so that those who are going to work in factories and elsewhere may see Conservative Members in their places, with not a single Opposition Member present?

Mr. Woodburn: On the more practical side of this matter, in the studies being made, will the right hon. Gentleman have the experiments being carried out in some of the Commonwealth Parliaments looked at? There the proceedings are reported on tape and are seen on closed circuit television within the House precincts for the use of the reporters and for greater accuracy.

The Prime Minister: When we come to give closer consideration to this matter, we will certainly do that.

HOUSING (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the problems disclosed by the Report of the Town and Country Planning Association on Housing in Britain, a copy of which has already been sent to the Department concerned, he will divide the functions of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and appoint a Minister of Housing in charge of a separate department.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Report provides no grounds for such action. Housing, planning and public health are all inter-related; and as these services are among the most important responsibilities of local authorities it is advantageous for the Minister of Housing to be responsible for local government as well.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that this comprehensive survey confirms the failure of Conservative Administrations to cope with the housing problem? Apart from overcrowding and high rents, the Report refers to the fact that there are over I million unfit houses in the United Kingdom. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that over the last ten years this country has almost the lowest performance of housebuilding in proportion to its population of any country in Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the housing problem in this country will not be dealt with adequately until a Minister is appointed who puts people's needs before profiteering?

The Prime Minister: If I were to go into comparisons with the performance of hon. Members opposite, I do not think that they would come out very well. It seems to me common sense that the Minister of Housing should deal with local authorities on all planning matters and therefore that this should be within his portfolio.

Lord Balniel: In view of the lamentably ill-informed supplementary question

of the hon. Member for Wednes-bury (Mr. Stonehouse), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the recent indications that the Government's housing programme of 400,000 houses a year will be reached next year? Can my right hon. Friend say whether this will be the case or not?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think that it will. In 1965 we hope to reach the 400,000 mark.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received a reply from Mr. Ian Smith following his invitation to Mr. Smith to come to London for discussions on the constitutional problems affecting Southern Rhodesia.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has now received from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia to his invitation to him to visit London for discussions on constitutional advance in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister what conclusions have been reached in the official exchange of letters between him and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 16th July, I hope that Mr. Smith will soon be able to announce his reply to my invitation.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the Commonwealth will not be faced with a unilateral declaration of independence by the Southern Rhodesian Government during the Parliamentary Recess?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we are all trying, both here and in Southern Rhodesia, to prevent anything unconstitutional happening.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers signed the conference communiqué on Southern Rhodesia only because they believed that the Prime Minister would call a constitutional conference? Is he further aware


that two days after the conference President Nyerere told the Cairo conference on African unity:
We left London confident that action would be taken "?
If the right hon. Gentleman does not take action and just waits indefinitely for Mr. Ian Smith to insult him, far from his chairmanship of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference having proved a success, it will have marked one of the most disastrous moments in the history of the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister: I do not know by what authority the hon. Lady thinks she can talk for, or indeed interpret the minds of, Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I made it clear to all my colleagues that I was hoping to see Mr. Smith and, as a result of a conversation, that we should then be in a better position to know how to deal with this very delicate and difficult situation which was recognised as such by every Prime Minister at the conference.

Mr. Webster: In view of the extraordinary remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), is it not much better that nothing should be said in this House which would exacerbate a highly delicate situation and the very delicate discussions which are to take place?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that the House may have noted the speech made yesterday by Mr. Smith in his Parliament.

Mr. Grimond: Would the Prime Minister confirm that, in accordance with the communiqué which he himself signed, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that a conference should be summoned which not only Mr. Smith but the leaders of other political parties in Southern Rhodesia should attend? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what response has been made to the appeal in that communiqué signed by Her Majesty's Government for the release from detention of African leaders?

The Prime Minister: What I want to do before we deal with these matters or try to reach a settlement is to see Mr. Smith, because a conversation is so much more satisfactory than correspondence.

Mr. Brockway: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement by Mr. Ian Smith yesterday that he wrote to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations three weeks ago and has not received any reply to that communication? Is that the case?

The Prime Minister: The correspondence between Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth is always confidential. Very often a number of very complicated questions are raised in letters and it takes some time to give a considered reply. I have invited Mr. Smith to come here, and I hope that he will be able to accept my invitation.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if Mr. Smith comes to London his electorate will expect him to return with some positive proposals leading to independence which have some chance of acceptance by the Rhodesian electorate? Will he be in a position to make some proposals?

The Prime Minister: I would rather see Mr. Smith first.

COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister how many requests for the supply of military arms and equipment by Commonwealth countries have been refused in the last three years; what was the nature of such requests; and why they were refused.

The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to disclose details of negotiations with other countries for the supply of military equipment. While applications from Commonwealth countries receive especially sympathetic consideration, they are dealt with in the light of the political, strategic and economic implications of each individual case.

Mr. Hamilton: Cannot the Prime Minister supply the House with information indicating the delays between the initial request for arms and the supply of them by this country? Is it not the case that several complaints have been made by Commonwealth countries that there has been delay in meeting their demands and that the Government seem


to have been more expeditious in seeking to supply arms to Spain and to South Africa than to members of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In these matters of armaments we try if we can to meet the Commonwealth countries' needs, and we do it in negotiation and by agreement with them.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very full answer to this question would be most welcome by hostile rations?

The Prime Minister: It would be no service to the Commonwealth countries concerned, and they would not like it at all, if I gave facts and figures in answer to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton).

Mr. Healey: Further to that reply by the Prime Minister, is he aware that the Prime Minister of Malaysia complained publicly in the United States only last week that Her Majesty's Government had taken three years to supply Malaysia with eight small naval craft? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why Her Majesty's Government are so dilatory in meeting the demands for arms of Commonwealth countries whose soldiers are fighting side by side with our own when simultaneously they are pressing warships into the hands of a dictator who is actively pressing claims for British territory?

The Prime Minister: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Any ships that we are building for Malaysia or any ships we are helping Malaysia to acquire are within the time scale which we worked out with the Malaysian Government. I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister of Malaysia was misinterpreted in what he said.

QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the class of Parliamentary Question which he proposes as a matter of general practice to answer himself.

The Prime Minister: As I said on 16th July, I intend to continue the practice I have hitherto followed, which is the same as that of my predecessors.

Mr. Shinwell: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has occasionally varied the practice and that there have been fewer opportunities of getting replies from the right hon. Gentleman than was the case when his predecessors were in office? Statistics are of no value in this matter. It is a question of behaviour, and that is what we are concerned with. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my sole concern in pressing this matter is to protect the rights of back benchers, and indeed of the whole House? There is nothing personal in this matter at all. Because there is nothing personal in the matter, as we are about to go on vacation, I wish the right hon. Gentleman a very long holiday.

The Prime Minister: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind thought. I do not think that there has been any variation in my practice. The quarter of an hour has always been filled. Practically always I could have answered more Questions if hon. Members opposite had not been so long-winded.

Mr. Ridley: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) complained that he had not transferred the Question on ships for Russia a few weeks ago, whereas today he has complained that he has not transferred enough? Would not my right hon. Friend think that he has got it about right?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the reason why I suggested that the Question to which the hon. Member refers might have been transferred was to save the time of the House, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, there was a great deal of trouble because he had not transferred the Question?

The Prime Minister: All I am saying is that I am following exactly the same practice as has been followed before. I have no wish to shirk answering Questions. What I want to do is to get the Questions to the right Ministers. If they are right for me, I will take them.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is trying to turn him into a one-man band, that we understand his wish not to become a one-man


band or to hog the Dispatch Box and we greatly look forward to the continued enjoyment of the Answers to Questions within his responsibility?

Mr. Driberg: Is the Prime Minister aware that his immediate predecessor had the courteous practice, if he had transferred a Question and if the hon. Member responsible for the Question asked for it to be answered by the Prime Minister, of re-transferring it to himself at the request of the hon. Member concerned? Although it is now a rather academic question, is the Prime Minister following the same practice?

The Prime Minister: I have been following that practice, but perhaps the hon. Member has not noticed it.

NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIP

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WINGFIELD DIGBY: To ask the Minister of Transport whether he will now announce his decision about the building of a British nuclear-powered merchant ship.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 83.
For some time the Government have been considering ways and means of cooperating with shipbuilders and ship-owners to get a nuclear-powered ship built on terms satisfactory both to the Government and to the two industries.
As the House was told by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 28th April, for a long time both shipowners and shipbuilders were reluctant to spend money on building such a ship, and it appeared that if a nuclear-powered ship were to be built it would have to be a Government project. However, my hon. and gallant Friend added that there was nothing to prevent a shipowner or a consortium of shipowners buying a reactor and giving it a trial, and that if this were to happen the Government would be delighted.
I can now say that recently a shipbuilding company and a shipowning company have jointly approached my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and

myself, with the object of building and operating a large merchant vessel powered by a Vulcain-type reactor. The firms concerned are Furness Shipbuilding Company and Anglo Norness Shipping Company. I may add that Imperial Chemical Industries is considering the possibility of employing the vessel if suitable terms can be negotiated.
Discussions are in progress to see whether agreement can be reached on arrangements for the financing and organisation of such a project.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of everyone concerned in this progressive venture and on the magnificent way in which, after some delay, this decision has been arrived at, which should bring satisfaction to all concerned? Can my right hon. Friend say what is the likely tonnage of the ship, in what part of the country it is likely to be built, and when building will start?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will accept the congratulations, although this is a very unusual experience for a Minister of Transport. The ship will be built on the North-East Coast by the Furness Shipbuilding Company if the agreement is satisfactorily arrived at. If we can come to a quick agreement, there is no reason why the ship should not be operational by 1968.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor made a promise about the building of a "Queen" just about five years ago and that no progress has yet been made?

Dame Irene Ward: Oh, be nice.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that what we were expecting today was an announcement of the decision of the Government, that we were promised it before the end of the Session, that we were, in fact, promised an opportunity for debate and that what we were to debate was the decision of the Government about proceeding with the construction of a nuclear-propelled vessel? Why do we not have that decision?

Mr. Marples: It is clear that the future of such a nuclear reactor depends upon a partnership between the Government


and the industries concerned. If those industries do not show an interest in it, it is difficult for the Government to proceed alone. I would not ask the hon. Member, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), to be nice. I ask him to be fair, that is all.
As to the Q.3, the Government played their part, got a Bill through and provided the finance. The outcome was merely that Cunard decided not to go ahead. It had nothing to do with the Government, who have already provided finance for the 0.4, which now depends upon Cunard's decision.

Mr. McMaster: In deciding where the vessel will be built, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to obtain competitive tenders and to use any influence he can to direct the work to Belfast, where there is need for such work and there is heavy unemployment in our shipyards?

Mr. Marples: As the approach came from a firm in the north-east of England that is what we are discussing. If, however, anybody in Belfast would like to come forward with a proposition, we would be pleased to listen to it.

Mr. Shinwell: While I am grateful that the vessel is to be built in the North-East, can the Minister be quite clear about this? He mentioned a particular company—the Anglo Norness Shipping Company, I believe. Does not this company have certain American interests? Was not the impression conveyed some time ago that this nuclear vessel would be a completely British industry project? Are we to understand that foreign interests will operate in the production of this vessel?

Mr. Marples: The company is registered in Bermuda and the ship will be registered in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is rising about. If it is a point of order, I will hear it, but not otherwise—that is to say, if it is a real point of order.

Mr. Shinwell: I asked a question in the hope of eliciting the facts. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely evaded the question. As this is a matter

of accuracy, surely we are entitled to have a reasonable reply from the right hon. Gentleman. Is this a British project or not?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. P. Williams: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this decision of the shipbuilders and the shipowners is courageous and enterprising and that if this sort of enterprise is to be continued, it depends upon encouragement from the Government in certain fields? Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be any financial contribution by the Government to the project? Can he say what is the likely size of the ship?
On a slightly diffrent matter, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government will continue, also, to encourage the development of traditional and conventional marine engines, such as the Doxford "J" engine, which is of vital importance to our marine engine industry?

Mr. Marples: The question of diesel engines, of course, does not arise out of my answer to this Question. At the moment, while the terms for the project are under discussion, it would be wrong of me, I think, to single out any particular item to divulge to the House at this stage, pending negotiations. But I would say that it is quite clear that the Government will have to play a considerable part in the future—as they have in the past, when they spent many millions of pounds on research and development—of this project. If it had not been for that research and development, it would not have been possible to have had the nuclear ship brought to this stage. I cannot at the moment say what size the ship will be. That, again, is the subject of negotiation.

Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very pleased that the Furness shipyard, which is in my constituency, has been given consideration in connection with this project, but would he say now whether it is definitely a British project?

Mr. Marples: The Furness Shipbuilding Company is in this country and Anglo Norness is registered in Bermuda.


The point is that it would be a United Kingdom and Commonwealth project together.

Mr. Wall: In view of the amount of Government support given to the aircraft industry, is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be expected that the Government would be generous to this very important shipbuilding project? Can he say whether there is any Royal Navy participation? Are steps now being taken to train crew and to make the necessary port facilities available?

Mr. Marples: The question of port facilities and training crew will come into the negotiations. The Royal Navy has special operational requirements, and the development of a nuclear reactor for a merchant ship is another matter entirely.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the decision of commercial interests to go ahead with this work indicate that it is economically competitive with conventional methods of propulsion, and can the right hon. Gentleman say, although he is not able to give us complete details of any financial agreements with the companies, whether approaches have been made to pay them subsidies for the operation of this vessel?

Mr. Marples: I can say this would come under the terms for discussion, but I do not think we could argue it at this stage. The economics of the present generation of reactors was very fully discussed in the Padmore Report, which I accepted. The terms are not settled yet. Unless they are agreed—and it is in the national interest, of course, that they should be—the project will not go forward. As we have a shipowning company and shipbuilding company, and somebody who will use the ship, and the Government, I see no reason why we should not be successful.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let us move on.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. The Minister could have made a statement, as you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, by asking permission to do so, instead

of answering a Question, which has been arranged—and I do not see in his place the hon. Member who put the Question down.
It has always been the custom for hon. Members who have Questions on the Paper to be in their places to put their Questions. It may seem an academic matter at this late stage in our proceedings, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that many of our old customs and rules are being whittled away by hon. Members treating the House with contempt.

Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order.

Mr. Bence: On a point of order. In respect of this statement which has been made by the Minister of Transport, there is on the Clyde the Yarrow Admiralty Committee, which has spent a great deal of time, over many years, in developing a nuclear marine unit. Should not the Minister, in view of what happened in 1959, have informed us about the part the Yarrow Admiralty Committee played?

Mr. Speaker: I have had occasion to observe more than once—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have not finished with this one yet. I have more than once indicated, and I do not want to have to do it again, that to rise and cover an observation by the use of the words "On a point of order" when there is not one at all is just a form of cheating.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to that point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers to this Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: That gets nearer to one.

GAMBIA (INDEPENDENCE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. N. PANNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what progress has been


made at the Gambia Constitutional Confersnce; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer Question No. 90.
I should like to inform the House that the Gambia Independence Conference, which was presided over by my noble Friend Lord Lansdowne, completed its work this morning. 18th February has been fixed as the date for independence.
The Conference Report containing the full conclusions will be printed as a White Paper.

Mr. Pannell: While expressing pleasure at the successful conclusion of these negotiations, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that Gambia is a very small territory entirely surrounded by Senegal, what the relations are likely to be between these two territories—whether a merger has been discussed?

Mr. Sandys: There are no plans for a merger. However, the Gambia has initialled draft agreements with Senegal for co-operation in defence and foreign affairs.

Mr. Bottomley: While welcoming independence for a Colony, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the decision to go forward with independence was unanimous on the part of all parties attending the conference? Further, would he give an assurance that any association of Senegal with the Gambia or vice versa will be left to the Gambia to decide?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, of course, there can be no question of the British Government deciding any merger between the Gambia and Senegal. That will be a matter for the Gambia to decide on its own, as it thinks best.
On the first question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I think that I can say that there is general agreement that the country wants independence. On the other hand, there was one point of disagreement in this connection, namely,

that the opposition, which is not always unusual in these circumstances, asked for new elections before independence. But we did not think that there were any special circumstances which justified departing from the normal practice.

Miss Vickers: May I ask what financial arrangements have been made about defence?

Mr. Sandys: We have undertaken to assist the Gambia in carrying out its development programme over the next three years. We shall also help them with their recurrent budget over the same period.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of a Statutory Instrument concerning Stoke-on-Trent? It was laid before the House on 23rd July. It comes into operation on 1st August. It has an effect upon an area with a population of 14,000 and a valuation of £320,000, and Article 44(c) mentions an increase of 6d. in the rates.
The House has this Statutory Instrument, affecting area boundaries, presented at the end of the Session when the Members representing the City of Stoke and the contiguous areas may or may not, and probably not, have an opportunity to discuss its implications. Is there no way in which this House can be treated with a little more respect than this?

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker of the day has a duty to give hon. Members guidance in private upon procedural questions which arise. The matter which the hon. Member raises is in no way related to any business before the House, and it does not give rise to any point of order. I cannot help him.

Mr. Harold Davies: I was raising a point of order, Sir.

Mr. K. Lewis: On a point of order. If it will help the hon. Member—

Hon. Members: Order !

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member did not hear me say that it did not give rise to a point of order.

ALFRED GEORGE HINDS

Miss Bacon: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take with regard to the petition of Alfred George Hinds asking for a review of his case under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): A petition was received at the Home Office at 1.55 p.m. today asking for Hinds' immediate release from prison, and indicating his intention of applying for a free pardon. I will give the petition immediate consideration.
Hinds was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in 1953 of breaking and entering, and was sentenced to 12 years' preventive detention. His application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused by the Court of Criminal Appeal. He has in recent months been under the hostel system, going to work daily outside the prison: that is, he. is on parole under the Prison Rules on condition that he returns nightly to Pentonville prison.
Pending my examination of the implications of yesterday's decision I have directed that this condition should be removed.

Miss Bacon: Do I understand from this that Alfred Hinds will not now be required to go back to prison at all? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman means?

Mr. Brooke: I must have time to consider the very unusual situation which has arisen. I am sure that the House would wish that. At present, Alfred Hinds is on parole, going out to approved work each day, but required to return to the prison at night. Pending my further consideration of his petition, I am releasing him from the condition of having to return to the prison each night.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Clearly, my right hon. Friend must have time to consider the petition and the position which arises from yesterday's proceedings. Will he, at the same time, give consideration to the question of now enabling to be

delivered to me the letter which was written to me by Alfred George Hinds in 1953 while he was in custody awaiting his trial, making certain complaints, which letter was seized by the governor of the prison and was the subject matter of a debate on the Adjournment in 1955?
I ask my right hon. Friend this because I understand that the letter has now been seen by almost everyone in England, except the hon. Member to whom it was addressed, including some of my professional colleagues at the bar. Would it not now be desirable that this letter, 11 years later, should be delivered, through the normal course of post, to me?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not being able in this hour and a half to familiarise myself with the details of what happened 11 years ago. I certainly will do so. Perhaps he and the House would care to know that I shall be answering a Question on the Order Paper today and indicating that I have reviewed and modernised the rules relating to letters from prisoners to Members of Parliament.

Mrs. Braddock: When the Home Secretary is making inquiries into the matter, will he also inquire how many times Hinds has put in petitions to the Home Office giving specific details of where he was upon the night he was supposed to be somewhere else? When he is making the inquiries, will he find out why it is that no notice is taken of things of this sort at the Home Office, and that when once a sentence has been decided a prisoner can put in as many petitions as he likes and nobody bothers about them and that the same sort of answer is sent to Members of Parliament when messages of this sort are sent?

Mr. Brooke: I must reject these allegations by the hon. Lady. Great care is taken in dealing with prisoners' petitions. But it is not normally right for the Home Secretary to override a decision of the courts in the absence of fresh evidence which was not before the courts.

FERRANTI LTD. (LANG REPORT)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the findings of the First Report of the Inquiry into the Pricing of Ministry of Aviation Contracts, deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Ministers to provide adequately for the protection of the taxpayer in respect of contracts placed with Messrs Ferranti Limited.
It is appropriate that the final debate of this dying Parliament should relate to one of the themes that has dominated our debates over the past five years—the latest and, in its way, most dramatic manifestation of the Government's failure to control waste and secure a proper value for the expenditure of the taxpayers' money on defence projects. This Parliament, which, in its earliest months, debated the explosion of the Blue Streak myth, now whimpers its way into history on the Ferranti disclosures.
It is equally appropriate that the final debate of this Parliament should take the form of a Motion of censure on the Minister of Aviation. No Minister has deserved less of this House. None has discharged his duties with less regard for the interests of the taxpayer. No other Minister charged with his responsibilities, not even his predecessor, has equalled his achievement in reducing both civil aviation and the aircraft industry to a state of near bankruptcy, redeemed only by costly doles from the public purse.
It fell to me some years ago to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Minister of Aviation, and if there were any standards in the Government's conception of what public life requires I should today be pronouncing the obsequies following his resignation. What has happened and all that he has wrought in the discharge of the important responsibilities entrusted to him—these are the price of nepotism.

Mr. Peter Emery: Shame! Cheap !

Mr. Wilson: Before I come to the financial aspects of the Ferranti business, I should like to refer to the manner in which this House has been treated,

not for the first or for the 51st time, in that we read the first detailed summary of the Lang Report not in a White Paper duly laid before Parliament, but in the columns of the public press. This has been the hallmark of the right hon. Gentleman's administration.
The right hon. Gentleman may on this occasion tell us that he was not responsible for the leak, nor was his Department. He may tell us that the fault lay, exceptionally, not in Whitehall but with Ferranti. If that is his defence, let him say so. Then let him explain why the Lang Report, the Report of a Committee set up as a consequence of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to this House, was given to a private firm, to which neither the Ministry nor this House owes any particular consideration, before it was presented to Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the leak came from Ferranti, I am sure that the House will accept what he says.
What we will not accept is any denial that on issue after issue affecting the Ministry's conduct of affairs, including vital, secret aspects of our national defence, secret information has been systematically and deliberately leaked to the Press—and not to one paper only—by his Ministry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Secret?"] Yes, secret. This is a serious matter, because there have been many cases. Government intentions to buy particular weapon systems, particularly aircraft—and obviously this is secret, whether from this country or, as is increasingly the case, from the United States—have been leaked to the Press at the very time when Ministers have hedged and stalled and dodged at the Dispatch Box and asserted that no decision had yet been taken.
During the difficult process of settling the Defence Estimates—difficult for any Government; we all recognise that it is a process involving great issues of defence policy, national security and the public purse—we have time after time read carefully leaked statements that this or that aircraft or weapon was to be ordered. In the event, the right hon. Gentleman was as often as not turned down by the Cabinet. One cannot easily calculate what purpose lay behind these leaks other than a desire to condition a Cabinet decision through Press and public pressure.
Then we had the VC10 story. Leaks came almost daily. The nature of the compromise which the right hon. Gentleman was proposing appeared in the Press before the Cabinet had met. Then appeared the news of the Cabinet rejection. Then the actual figure of the intended purchases. The decision communicated at a private meeting last Sunday week between the right hon. Gentleman and Sir Giles Guthrie appeared on the Monday morning. Only two persons knew what had been said, apart, of course, from the Prime Minister, who had received a lunch-time report—and we certainly acquit him.
If time and the rules of order permitted, I could give the House a whole series of these cases of security leakages. In fact, we have had one all-night sitting, last night, and I do not suppose that the House wishes to be kept up by my going into these details. I have here a file of many of the cases which have occurred in this Parliament. If the Prime Minister is interested, I shall be quite happy to give the details, although I should be very surprised if he does not know about them already. Debate after debate has certainly convicted the right hon. Gentleman's Department of incompetence. To this, must be added the graver charge for one who is responsible in the most secret matters of defence, the charge—I use this phrase in the strict "Oxford English Dictionary "definition—not only of incompetence but a degree of incontinence which makes him unfit to hold office.
I should like to make clear that our charge is not against the journalists concerned—there is more than one of them—but against the Minister and his Department. The journalists have their job to do and we shall defend—as we did a year ago and more—the rights of a free Press. But it is not the job of the Defence Minister to make that job a push-over for these journalists.
These journalists—I do not only have Mr. Chapman Pincher in mind, though he really is too distinguished to set up in business, as he did this morning, as the apologist and P.R.O. for this particular Minister—are voracious in their appetite for any tasty morsel which is thrown to them. That is their job. But it is the job of a Minister responsible

for defence security to see that these morsels are as rare as it is humanly possible to ensure.
Now I turn to Ferranti and the £5 million. The Lang Report, the first Report, has entirely justified the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee and the Opposition in the strictures each has made. I think it fair to say, and let us recognise, that this affair would not have come to light but for the vigilance and effectiveness of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. Privileged as I have been for four years to see the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Exchequer and Audit Department at close quarters, I feel, as would many hon. Members, that it would be churlish for this House to fail to place on record its appreciation of their tireless and back-breaking work on behalf of the taxpayer.
The deterrent effect of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee in preventing waste and abuse—to which I have drawn attention in previous debates—obviously cannot be measured. We cannot measure the waste saved because of prevention. In this case, where £4¼ million of mispent appropriations have been returned to the taxpayer, I think that it is possible for all of us, the Press. the public and for this House, to be able to identify and to quantify a particular and very welcome success.
The Lang Report criticises particular servants, and I will come to this in a moment. If the Comptroller and Auditor General and the officers concerned at Audit House had been employed in private industry, I think that they would have received a sizeable bonus from their grateful employer for what they have done on this occasion. I repeat, this refund is due to the ex post facto vigilance of a small number of public servants where the Minister responsible has failed to exercise the vigilance which his duty to the public required.
When the Comptroller and Auditor General reported to the House, the Minister, hastily—that very same day—appointed the Lang Committee. It was his hope, no doubt, that this would head off the Public Accounts Committee from any inconvenient inquiry, and that the whole matter would be swept under the


carpet until a spring General Election was nicely out of the way. But this neat calculation ignored two things. First, the dedication and sense of responsibility of members of the Public Accounts Committee from all parties. Secondly, it ignored the political timidity of the Prime Minister. We did not get a spring election so the timing has gone wrong. We had the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. The House debated the Report and we were fobbed off with references to the Lang Report in that debate.
Now we have the Lang Report, what is the excuse to be? Is it to be—as the Press seems to have been briefed this morning—that it is all the fault of one or two technical civil servants? We had that ore on the Radcliffe Report on the Vassall case—except that there we had the highly convenient fact that the civil servant in question was dead. We had it more recently over the responsibility of the Home Secretary for de Courcy's escape, where the right hon. Gentleman failed even to "come clean" with the House. Honour was satisfied—his honour anyway—by reprimanding two prison warders.
I understand that there is to be a disciplinary inquiry into the Ministry of Aviation, and I do not seek to prejudice that inquiry. There is one thing that anyone concerned with the maintenance of the traditional standards of public conduct will not tolerate, and that is the persistent effort to shift ministerial responsibility for departmental action on to the shoulders of civil servants who are not in a position to defend themselves.
We know, of course, that under this Government, standards have fallen. Does anyone think that Lord Attlee would have tolerated this debasing of our standards? Or, indeed, within the 13 years of Conservative rule, that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) would have done so? In the Crichel Down case the responsible Minister—who enjoyed and deserved the respect and affection from this House that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation has never enjoyed nor deserved—Sir Thomas Dugdale, who is now Lord Crathorne, resigned on a very strict application of the rule of ministerial responsibility, and he earned the respect of the

whole House for doing so. Not any of the Ministers responsible in this case have done so. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman can say that he was not the Minister responsible when a large part of this was happening. But it is much easier—if the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible someone else is, and we have heard no suggestion of his resignation—to blame the civil servants.
On the question of the civil servants, let me draw the attention of the House to one of the findings in the Lang Report. The fact is that the Department, obsessed by a penny wise, pound foolish, doctrine of economy, has persistently run the branches concerned on a shoe-string, woefully understaffed, and unable to do the job which needed to be done if the public purse and the taxpayer were to be protected. I have—I think that this is true of a number of hon. Members—never underrated the difficulties of financial control of these R and D contracts. In the first Report with which I was concerned as a member of the Public Accounts Committee this was frankly stated and the difficulties analysed.
Again, in the first debate we ever had on a Public Accounts Committee Report, in December, 1960, my colleagues and I chose this subject—the unique difficulties of controlling finance and expenditure on R and D contracts—as the one theme for the first debate, and it has featured in subsequent debates. If we are to embark on these ventures, and deal with firms who—as this case shows—are less than frank, less than open, with the Department concerned, if we are to set up a system where the dice are so heavily loaded in favour of the firm and against the Exchequer, we have a duty to staff the relevant branches on a basis which will enable the financial controllers to do their job.
But, of course, this would not happen, because it has been a central theme of the Government that civil servants are wasteful, unproductive, parasitical and a drag on the economy and that their numbers should be reduced regardless of the consequences, never mind if there is a much greater increase in the numbers employed in advertising, financial speculation, property racketeering, or gambling, or the enforcement of monopoly power—because these things are good and productive and because they make a profit. The


result of this philosophy is the under-staffing and scamped work in a vitally important Department of State.
I do not propose to weary the House with all the detailed criticisms of the internal operations of the Ministry, of the individual failures of the Directorate of Technical Costs and of the Directorate of Accountancy Services, still more the complete failure of all concerned to bring these two Departments together and to co-ordinate them. These matters were very fully dealt with in the P.A.C. Report and in the previous debate. What Sir John Lang has done, with great authority and with the painstaking research which he and his colleagues have brought to this inquiry, is to underline all that was said by the Public Accounts Committee and in the debate.
There is one thing on which he has been able to improve on the P.A.C. Report. He has been able to measure the total loss. One of the most unsavoury aspects of this business was Ferranti's refusal to give the Public Accounts Committee, a Committee of the House, access to his books. I am glad that he was persuaded to be more forthcoming with the Lang Committee. We now know the figures. Ferranti made a profit of £5,772,964, representing 82 per cent. on its costs.
The Report is equally frank in assessing the responsibility of Ferranti. It was smart; it was very smart.
They submitted quotations and agreed prices which they knew were very likely to yield profits that the Ministry would not regard as fair and reasonable, profits which can only be described only as excessive.
That is a quotation from the Lang Report. It was secretive, evasive. It was still producing for the purpose of price negotiation, producing at a very late stage in the production process, when the order was nearly complete, cost estimates for the Ministry which production experience had already falsified. As paragraph 28 makes clear, in July, 1960, the firm increased its estimates
basing their prices, as before, on the prime cost estimates agreed with the Ministry's technical cost officers but applying 558 per cent. as the overhead rate on direct labour. Their revised quotation related to the quantity of missile equipments—about 80 per cent of the total—expected to be delivered by 31st March, 1961. At the time of quoting"—

that is, quoting these so-called estimates—
nearly three-quarters of the items covered by the quotation had already been delivered or were in course of manufacture.
The firm must have known at that time that the figures it was quoting to the Ministry had already been falsified by production experience.
One thing is very clear and that is the danger of basing a price on a direct cost, be it labour cost or anything else, to which is then applied a multiplier in terms of overheads running into several hundreds per cent. It is an extremely dangerous way of calculating prices, because a small error in the prime cost, or, for that matter, a small degree of waste, for which this system provides every incentive and which is rewarded six times over, can be exaggerated several times over by the multiplier.
Let it be noted that in September, 1961, when 90 per cent. of the order had been delivered and probably 95 per cent. of the order produced, the firm pressed for an overhead rate for the last 20 per cent. which had been produced and delivered of 630 per cent. overhead rate on direct labour—and the Ministry agreed.
What are the lessons of this regrettable affair? The first is that if we are to do business in this way on what is really an open-ended contract, we need to see that the public interest is adequately represented and adequately staffed. The Lang Report underlined what all of us felt—that once we move into this kind of operation, we are moving in shark-infested waters and we need care, we need vigilance and, what was lacking above all, we need toughness. We are getting a refund now thanks to the vigilance not of the Department, but of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
On the subject of this refund, we should like to know what truth there is in this morning's Daily Express report that Ferranti is now likely to get £10 million more of new contracts in the next fortnight for equipment in connection with the P1154 fighter. Can we be told whether this is so and how this is known, since presumably the tenders and any decision of the Ministry itself will not have been taken—which I doubt. How can it be known outside?
The second lesson is that while, as I have said and as many others on both sides of the House have said many times, none of us under-rates and never has under-rated the tremendous difficulties of cost control in this kind of operation—and, goodness knows, cost plus, a system of ascertained costs plus a percentage profit, has its dangers and a built-in tendency towards waste—it is clear that a fixed price arrangement so clearly weighted in favour of the contractor is likely to lead to profits which are excessive by any standard.
What is wrong is that the private contractor, inevitably preoccupied with a desire to maximise his profits, which is understandable, and the public Department, whose job it is to protect the taxpayer, should be operating at arm's length from one another in conditions which put a premium on withholding and concealing relevant information from the Department concerned.
Four years ago, we warned that the interests of the taxpayer in such cases could be protected only by a system involving an assertion of public responsibility and public control. In our last debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) quoted from a little work called "Signposts for the Sixties"—this, of course, was sufficient to send the right hon. Gentleman into one of his ideological orbits where he is always much happier than when he is performing the humdrum rôle of protecting the taxpayer.
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what should be done if we are to be involved in any future case of weapon development where the problems and the cost of both development and subsequent production, as in this case, are unpredictable. Let me say what might have been done in this case. When we embark on a weapon, Bloodhound in this case, we should set up a joint company, a £100 company, possibly called Bloodhound Project Ltd., in which 50 per cent. of the shares would be held by the contractor and 50 per cent. by the Ministry. The price would be fixed, as in this case, as we went along. It would be nice to have estimates; before the production of any large unit and not after it had been produced. Mistakes might be made and we all recognise the possibility of mistakes in this kind of job, but the 50 per cent.

arrangement would mean automatically that half of any miscalculation would go back to the Ministry.
Furthermore, with both sides in on both production—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about a loss?"]. Hon. Members opposite ask what would happen if there were a loss. In almost every case, because prices are controlled in this way, whenever costs were rising the Ministry would hear about it. There has been only one case, the Argosy case, full details of which were leaked to the Press the Sunday before our last debate, which will be quoted in extenuation. But in that case the contract was given to the company concerned to help it out of a financial hole. There was no question of the Ministry having to go in with some new and difficult development, so that that was not a parallel.
However, there is another advantage in what I have suggested. Both sides would be involved on a partnership basis both on production control and on price ascertainment and it would, therefore, be much easier for all concerned to know the costs and prices and to relate them to known facts arising from the process of production. The fact that in the case I have envisaged—if it had been the Bloodhound case—Ferranti's directors and the Ministry's directors would be sitting around the same board table at the monthly board meetings, would have made it inconceivable that the firm's directors would withhold from their colleagues, partners and co-directors, information in their possession which they knew to be relevant.
The third lesson relates to the failure of the Treasury and Ministers generally to exercise their responsibilities in the matter of costs. When the Plowden Report was published I expressed my doubts—and I know that some people thought it a bit old-fashioned—about the fact that the Treasury was relinquishing its traditional control to the spending Departments before the Departments themselves were organised in a way which would enable them to provide effective departmental control, and this case has underlined the doubts which I expressed on that occasion. Certainly, the record of the Treasury in permitting this case to arise betrays a deplorable lack of financial control by the Treasury, which was responsible for supervising it.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I gather, hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and who is becoming adept, if not happy, at running in double harness with his right hon. Friend in our fortnightly—or is it weekly?—aviation debates, will answer some of the questions. He always puts on a polished performance without giving the House any figures. I hope that on this occasion he will deal very seriously with the problem of the Treasury's own responsibility in this matter, for we are not satisfied, and any perusal of the Public Accounts Committee's findings will suggest that the Treasury did not play the part in this case which it should have played.
I should like to feel that not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also the First Lord of the Treasury was concerned, on the taxpayers' behalf, because he is responsible both for his Ministers and for the administration of the Government. Hon. Members may have seen that in an outburst of macabre humour, in the leading article of The Guardian today, there was a reference to the right hon. Gentleman as the Prime Minister "who might have brought order into the great spending Departments, but did not". This is carrying sick humour too far. To suggest bringing in the Prime Minister to get a grip on any situation involving administration, industry and the details of finance is about as relevant as to suggest bringing in the Dalai Lama to the conduct of affairs.
In any case, even if he were capable of it, he is too busy shooting round the country ineffectively delivering the same speech to long-suffering audiences. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about you?"] It is not the same speech in my case. Hon. Members may read the Penguin in which they will find that all the speeches are different, and they are all my own work, too.
After that brief "commercial", I feel that, having studied the Lang Report, if right hon. Gentlemen, from the Prime Minister downwards, would spend 1 per cent. of the time which they now spend on playing politics with the nation's defence, for electioneering purposes, in facing up to the realities of the defence position and cutting out even a fraction

of the wasteful expenditure which they pour out on missile projects, most of which are scrapped before they leave the drawing board anyway, they might begin to look like Ministers.
The Ferranti disclosures—and this is my fourth and last point—represent the consummation in a long and weary list of defence financial failures which, whatever the differences in their chequered history, have this in common—a prodigious waste of public money. I hope that the Prime Minister, if he will take a suggestion from me, will devote a party political television broadcast to giving the nation a record of the last seven years in defence expenditure—since the White Paper of 1957. There has been Minister after Minister, each with a new and more costly alternative to the favoured project of his predecessor. In 1959, we had the right hon. Gentleman now Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. We remember his White Paper and the Press headlines—"Blue Streak in, Polaris out". We remember the long Press briefings to show why Polaris would not work.
In 1960, we had a new Minister, Mr., now Lord, Watkinson. Blue Streak out, Skybolt in. We were told that Skybolt was the answer to the foolish virgin's prayer. More expenditure, more projects, more waste. In 1962, there was a new Minister: Skybolt out, Polaris in—which the Government had rejected four years before with such contempt. During the four years there had been hundreds of millions of pounds expenditure in this nuclear La ronde in which Ministers are engaged.
In 1964, last week, we had the party political television broadcast by the present Minister of Defence. He said:
That is the Polaris submarine. It provides the most indestructible type of retaliation known to man.
That was just the exact opposite to what had been said in February, 1959, by his predecessor but one. Thus we had five years, £8,000 million and three Ministers—and they all had this in common: each one of them, before becoming Minister of Defence, had been either Minister of Supply, or in one case Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, or Minister of Aviation. Each of them had served his apprenticeship in the aviation field. Each of them had


passed out after that apprenticeship with the highest honour in the sense of wasting the maximum amount of the taxpayers' money even before he was given Cabinet responsibility.
It is fair to say that the present Minister of Aviation is still at the apprentice stage. but in his aptitude for pouring the taxpayers' money down the drain, with nothing to show for it, he has—I grant him this—transcended the achievements of every one of his predecessors. One trembles to think what the Defence Estimates would be if, his indentures completed, he were to pursue his predestined path to the Defence Ministry.
But this, at least, will not happen. Not because he will resign We know that the contrast between his standards and those of Lord Crathorne is as marked as the contrast between those of the present Prime Minister and those of the former Prime Minister, who accepted Lord Crathorne's resignation over Crichel Down. I do not propose to waste any words asking him, or any of his predecessors who were responsible for this affair, to resign, because it is not necessary. A. few more weeks, and he will have to obey a call more urgent and authoritative than his own conscience—and he will not be alone when he does it. Then, and only then, shall we have a Government with a sane and relevant defence policy and an economical and efficient means of carrying it out.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
while recognising the difficulties involved in estimating costs in relation to novel and complex fields of manufacture, and noting the findings of the first report of Sir John Lang's Inquiry, endorses the action already taken to strengthen the contracts organisation of the Ministry of Aviation and the intention to take such further steps as may be necessary in the light of Sir John Lang's further report and approves the acceptance of the offer of Ferranti Limited to refund a total of £4,250,000.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has been a distinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, so I have listened with very great care and respect to what he has said on the more detailed aspects of the Bloodhound contract. I should like to join with him in paying my tribute to the Public Accounts Committee's Report, to the

work of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and to the work of Sir John Lang, although the right hon. Gentleman will remember that his appointment was somewhat criticised from the other side of the House as likely to be prejudiced.
The right hon. Gentleman is also something of an authority in his own right on leaks, a subject of which he made a considerable study. I propose to turn at the end of my remarks to what he said on the subject of premature disclosures. But before I turn to these, which inevitably are of a controversial and personal character, I should like to deal with the broader issues before us and take them first in terms of responsibility of my Department and therefore myself in the matter and afterwards of our relations with Ferranti Ltd.
The story of Government contract services is a long and honourable one. There were some murky passages in the eighteenth century, but after that the Contracts Branch was kept very much apart from the rest of the Administration. This was not so marked in the Admiralty, but in the War Office and the Air Ministry, before the war, the Contracts Branch was almost a little empire of its own. It may have preserved its integrity, but I cannot say that its efficiency did not suffer to some extent from this.
This Service tradition was carried on in war time in the Ministry of Supply and Ministry of Aircraft Production and maintained in the reorganisation which took place in 1946 when the war-time system was adapted to our peacetime needs. Since 1946, the organisation has evolved as weapons systems have become more complex. The Technical Costs Branch, in particular, has been enlarged in size and improved in quality and it is stronger today in both respects than it has ever been before in war or peace.
Generally, I would claim that this organisation has stood the test of experience and that our procurement of weapons systems under it has on the whole been successfully accomplished. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the nuclear La ronde. Well, Blue Streak was fired successfully. No doubt if the party opposite came into office Polaris would be abandoned and the nation would have to rely on whatever United


States President comes into power. I believe that our procurement system of weapons has, on the whole, been successful and I do not believe that excessive profits or losses have been common. We know what the profit figures of the aircraft industry are. So much Government business is conducted with it that we would very soon detect them if there were any excessive profits in that sphere. I am speaking of airframes and aero-engines.
We have, of course, less information about the electronics industry because so much of this work is carried out on private account, but with the advantage of hindsight I had a special inquiry made by a retired Deputy Director of Contracts in my Department into the recent Ferranti contracts we have let. We have not, of course, got all the information about it, but we have a good deal and the report I have received gives no evidence of excessive profits in any case. All the information we have leads to this conclusion, but I freely agree that the Bloodhound contracts do show the need for some overhaul. [Interruption.] I would ask the House to be very careful before it dismisses the work of the Contracts Branch as inefficient. Sir John Lang is to report in the autumn on the organisation as it stands and to make recommendations for improving it.
A good deal of thought has been given by us to changes which may be necessary. We have to consider very carefully whether the Contracts Branch is strong enough either in size or quality. We have investigated the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages, of using outside consultants. We have not only considered the adoption of incentive contracts with risk-sharing provision, but we have made a contract with Ferranti Limited for a particular component in TSR2 in which we would share in savings or losses and it looks as if we shall share in the saving.
I have also considered the need for high-grade "project officers" and we are making an appointment of this kind where the P. 1154 is concerned. I am making these points not to announce decisions about them, but to show the way our minds are moving pending Sir John Lang's second report.
Sir John Lang found in his Report a central mistake on the Ministry's part from which the others have flowed. The Technical Costs Branch miscalculated the direct labour content of the job by over 100 per cent. In other words, it thought that the human effort required to complete the job would be twice as large as it proved to be.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Time and motion study would settle that.

Mr. Amery: There is no evidence in Sir John Lang's Report—indeed he finds the contrary—that a revolutionary process was introduced by Ferranti. It was a mis-calculation. This mistake was magnified by the addition of overheads calculated at the rate of about 500 per cent. This labour content estimate was the basic mistake but there were two chances open to our contract organisation to remedy it. The estimates, as the Report shows, were made at the end of 1959. The prices were not agreed until the end of 1960 and 1961. At that time the job had been largely completed and we could have insisted on looking at the work and calling for figures. Sir John Lang makes this clear in paragraph 48 of the Report. This was not done. Had it been done, I have no doubt that the firm would have protested, but it could and should have been done.
There was a second chance. This was to compare the figures of direct labour in the overhead calculations of the accountancy services with the estimates of direct labour by technical costs. This was not done for reasons which I explained in detail in the last debate. It is only fair to say that Sir John Lang does not regard this as negligent contracting. We find that in paragraph 51 Sir John shows where our contract organisation went wrong. He does not show so clearly why it went wrong. This is something I am determined to find out. I have started a stringent investigation into the question of personal responsibility in all this. The Permanent Secretary of my Department will be in charge of this and the new Deputy Secretary who has just come from Admiralty, where he has had great experience of contracts, Mr. Mackay, will help. All this will be done in close touch with Sir Laurence Helsby.
Yesterday's Press was full of stories about disciplinary action. There is no foundation for this any more than there is for the stories in today's Press that there will be no disciplinary action. The investigation is only beginning and we would not hesitate to take disciplinary action if it were proved to be necessary. I come now to the question of ministerial responsibilities. I think that it would be wholly unsuitable in a matter of this kind where the taxpayers' interest, as has been proved, has been adequately defended, to make any charge against any Minister—[An HON. MEMBER: "This is absurd."]—in this affair.
I have studied very carefully the records of resignations in matters of varying kinds over the last 50 years. Sir Austen Chamberlain is, I think, always regarded as the Minister who showed the most punctiliousness in a matter of resignation and his responsibility for the matter in question was very tenuous.

Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is not a judge.

Mr. Amery: The Leader of the Opposition has called on me to resign. Surely I have a right to reply. It was said of Chamberlain, by an unkind critic, that he always played the game and always lost it. No one will ever say the first part of that aphorism about the Leader of the Opposition.
I want to say something now about the action which has been taken in my Department since the Report of the Public Accounts Committee came into our hands. The Director-General of Aircraft Production in the Ministry has made a detailed study of the Technical Costs Branch. Our purpose was to break down the separation which has existed to some extent between the Contracts Branch and other parts of the Department and a number of recommendations have been made.
The first and most important is that it has now been laid down that it is to be the responsibility of the firms with which we deal to make the estimates and the Technical Costs Branch will check those estimates. In recent years, the technical branch has tended to make estimates of its own and compare them with those of the firms. That has been an unsatisfactory procedure.
The Accountants' Branch has also been transferred from the Finance Division to the Contracts Division so as to avoid in future the "ivory tower" criticism made in Sir John Lang's Report. Instructions have been given to the contracts staff to inform themselves of actual costs on an early production batch before they accept technical cost estimates for the major production batch.
As a matter of routine, the Accountancy and Technical Costs Directorates will compare labour figures in overhead calculations with direct labour estimates although, as I have said, the number of cases where this will help will be relatively few. In conjunction with the Treasury and other purchasing Departments, we are making a full study of the form which contracts should take where there is no competition, and no open tender.
We are also examining closely the treatment of overhead costs. Means must be devised to reduce the chances that errors in forward estimating of direct labour costs should become exaggerated by a large overhead factor.
I turn now to Ferranti's part in the matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Which one?

Mr. Amery: Ferranti Ltd. It would be very wrong for the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) to suggest anything else.

Mr. Lewis: Where is the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti)?

Mr. Amery: The main contracts for Bloodhound I components and equipment were placed in 1956. In 1960 and 1961 prices amounting to £12 million were agreed, which allowed for a 7 per cent. profit on costs. Sir John Lang has seen the Ministry's books and Ferranti's books. He finds that the actual costs were about £7 million. Ferranti thus took a profit of £5,770,000, or about 82 per cent. on cost.
The essence of a fixed price contract is that the contractor undertakes risk and I have spoken in the House, in our debate in April, about the Argosy contract and the very heavy loss which Hawker-Siddeley suffered under it. An


82 per cent. profit is, by any standard, excessive, but I confess that I would have hesitated to press for a refund had there not been special circumstances.
Sir John Lang found that there were special circumstances. He concluded that, when prices were agreed, Ferranti must have known more or less what the outcome would be. He concluded that on the first batch it must have known within narrow limits and on the last batch pretty accurately.
Standard Condition 43, the provision which governed this contract, lays down that prices must be fair and reasonable. Sir John Lang judged that, in the light of the knowledge available to Ferranti the prices agreed could not be regarded as fair and reasonable. In these circumstances, and these alone, I felt justified in reopening the correspondence we had begun with Ferranti at the time of the earlier debate and I sought a refund.
Ferranti has certain reservations on Sir John Lang's Report, but it has felt bound to abide by the result of what it acknowledges was an impartial inquiry. It has accordingly offered a refund totalling £4¼ million, leaving the firm with a 21 per cent. profit. That is certainly a substantial profit. In the debate on 29th April, I expressed the view and explained to the House that, while our Contracts Department would set a profit margin of about 7 per cent., an efficient firm might beat that and secure something in the region of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. profit.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in that debate:
By an excessive profit, I do not mean 15 or 20 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 538.]
The Permanent Secretary to the Ministry, Sir Richard Way, gave evidence to the Select Committee to the same effect. This job was carried out in time, to a standard of high efficiency and there was no contractual obligation on the firm's part to make a refund. We therefore accept the firm's offer as reasonable. The timing and details of the repayment will be settled between my Department and Ferranti. It is not easy for any firm to repay a sum of this size over a short period.

We have no wish to penalise Ferranti or hinder work for the Department.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for information about future contracts. We have made it plain that we would not discriminate against the firm. Nor would we discriminate in its favour. We shall place future contracts where we think it is best in the national interest to do so.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny what has appeared in several reports—that Ferranti made it a condition of offering to repay this money that the right hon. Gentleman should make a statement that he would not discriminate against it in future? Or did the firm offer to repay without condition?

Mr. Amery: We asked for a repayment. We and we alone are responsible for the statement we have made. We are dealing with a firm—[Interruption.] The hon. Member asked a question. Perhaps other hon. Members will give him a chance to hear the reply. We are dealing with a highly efficient firm with which the Government have every interest in working. We have no interest in discriminating against it. We shall work with it and, what is more, I believe that, in the light of the events which have taken place, this will not prove a difficult task. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] There were no conditions.
The lessons for the industry are clear. It does not pay to take advantage of the Government.

Mr. R. T. Paget: What!

Mr. Amery: All this happened some time ago. We in my Department have learned a good deal from it. So, I think, has Ferranti.

Mr. H. Rhodes: So has the country.

Mr. Amery: At any rate, that is my impression from the negotiations my Department has had with the firm at different times in the last year or two.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Why does not the Minister prosecute the firm?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman does himself and the country no good by decrying the ability of a highly efficient firm


which has a great contribution to make. After what has happened, I am confident that our relations with Ferranti will not again be clouded by events like those we are discussing. That is why we have made it clear that we have no intention of discriminating against the firm in the allocation of future contracts and we look forward to harnessing its skill to the national interest.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the decision not to discriminate against the firm he has considered the interests not only of the firm itself, but of all the men who serve the firm and who have helped to build it up over the years?

Mr. Amery: The tribute that I paid to the skill of Ferranti applies to all those who serve in the organisation.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: rose—

Mr. Amery: The debate is very short. The clock is moving on. I must get on.
Sir John Lang's First Report finds that serious mistakes were made, both by the contracts organisation of my Department and by Ferranti. Ferranti has agreed to make a refund, which I understand is very inconvenient to the firm. What is more serious is that public confidence in relations between Government and industry has suffered a pretty serious jolt. In this business of large Government contracts there must be a relationship of confidence between the Government and industry. There are people in industry—I come across them every day—who think that our contracts people tend to press industry too hard. In this case there seems to have been a clear tendency to take advantage of the Government. Neither course can be in the best interests of either the country or of the parties concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we were sailing in shark-infested waters. This is no kind of language for a man who seeks to work closely with industry. I have had the chance of discussing these issues recently with the heads of the electronics and the aviation industries. My belief is that the lessons of these events have been taken to heart by them and that they will strengthen the partnership between the Government and these two industries which we have been trying to foster.
I freely admit that mistakes have also been made by my Department, but I am sure that the House will recognise that the task of the Contracts Division is an immensely difficult one. It is costing at the frontiers of knowledge and estimating the cost of the unknown. This is a tremendous responsibility, but with it goes a great deal of routine, and even tedious, work. It is not easy, believe me, to get the right men in the right quantities to staff the technical costs branch, whatever salary is offered.
These, after all, are very highly qualified engineers. It has been assumed for a long time that Britain was so rich in talent that we could get people for any job the Government wanted done, but with industry booming the way it is it is difficult to tempt qualified engineers from productive work to what is essentially monitoring work. The supply of skilled men in this country is not inexhaustible, and the technical Civil Service is already strained.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite should remember this when they talk about extending the public sector. It is all very well talking about a 50 per cent. interest in a company called "Bloodhound". I do not know where the men would be found to protect the interest on the scale hon. Members opposite envisage. The right hon. Gentleman also needs to remember that we need our best men on the creative and productive side in industry. I believe that the Bloodhound I incident is the exception to the general course of contracts between the Government and industry. This is one occasion, the only one I have come across, where the Contracts Branch of my Department has actually overestimated the cost of a project. The Department nearly always underestimates the cost and comes back for more. This time it over-estimated the cost, and that is very rare.
Nevertheless, I freely agree that what has happened shows the need for an overhaul. I have already announced some of the decisions we have taken, and more will follow when we have the second part of Sir John Lang's Report. Meanwhile, the taxpayer, I am glad to say, has suffered no loss. This is a happy conclusion which we owe to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and to the efforts of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Before I sit down, I want


to deal with the allegations of the right hon. Gentleman about premature disclosures.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I want to ask the Minister a question based on a careful study of the Lang Report. The Report states that the Minister's accountants withheld information from the technical officers. What action has the Minister taken on that allegation?

Mr. Amery: I thought that I explained earlier in my speech that we have now brought the accountancy branch and the technical costing branch into the same division of the Ministry. I explained that some minutes ago.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's allegations about premature disclosures. The right hon. Gentleman claimed in a question on the business statement last week that
Ministry of Aviation business, Ministry of Aviation secret reports, Ministry of Aviation proposals "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 695.]
had been privately leaked to a single newspaper, for reasons which he could only surmise. He charged that this had happened on at least 15 occasions this year. These are very serious charges. The right hon. Gentleman raised the matter, as he told the House, with the Prime Minister, and he said that he had suggested an inquiry into the long succession of security leaks from one Ministry.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the most loyal of chiefs and colleagues, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman referred in particular to reports by Mr. Chapman Pincher on the VC10 on 20th July and on Sir John Lang's Report on 23rd July.

Mr. H. Wilson: And the Defence Estimates.

Mr. Amery: I had notice only of these two points. These are the only two of the 15 points of which I have had any detailed information. Investigations into them have been carried out under the direction of Sir Laurence Helsby, the Head of the Civil Service. We have no reason to believe that there was any leak from the Ministry of Aviation in either case.
Mr. Chapman Pincher's article of 20th July about the VC10 contained nothing

that was not already in the week-end Press, in the Daily Telegraph of 18th July, and in the Daily Mail of the same day. It is true that he was well-informed about my movements on Sunday. This was not very difficult, as there were Daily Express reporters posted outside my house. Indeed, when I left my house, leaving Sir Giles Guthrie and the Permanent Secretary in it, to go to see the Prime Minister a Daily Express reporter said to me, "I am from the Daily Express. May I have a statement, Sir Giles?" I lost a golden opportunity.
Sir Laurence Helsby is equally convinced that the report on the Lang Report did not emanate from Ministry of Aviation sources.

Mr. Loughlin: Where did it come from?

Mr. Amery: I have been trying to tell hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Loughlin: Hurry up, then.

Mr. Amery: Mr. Chapman Pincher spoke to my Chief Information Officer that morning, and all that he elicited from him was the fact that the Report had been received in the Department. Mr. Pincher has himself denied that he received any information from Government sources, and there is internal evidence in the story itself, because it says:
Mr. de Ferranti told Sir John"—
that is, Sir John Lang—
that the company lost more than £1 million on computers which were costed by the same method because of unexpected technical trouble.
This was not in the Lang Report. It may, for all I know, have been in the evidence given to Sir John Lang, but if so, no one in my Department except the Secretary to the Lang Committee would have known that. It is also perhaps of some significance that Mr. Pincher got the figure wrong. He quoted it as £4 million, instead of £4¼ million.
The House will understand that there were a number of copies of this Report in Whitehall, and now I come to deal with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. We showed the Report to Ferranti, and we were right in doing so. Sir John Lang's Report was based on information supplied by the company when it opened its books. It was up to the company to consider the


Report, and what action it should take on it, and I think that it would have been intolerable not to have shown the Report to the company before it was published. After all, this was not a report commissioned by Parliament. It was commissioned by my right hon. Friend and myself.
The House will realise that industrial issues are very different from policy or military issues. If one is discussing an industrial matter, a number of people outside the Government very often have to be consulted on it. There are conflicting interests, and the Press is vigilant to see what information it can pick up. We are not here dealing with security issues. I think that the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase loosely last Thursday. Of course, civil servants who leak information of this sort would be guilty of an offence, but anyone in industry who did so would not.
It is not a bad rule in a matter of this kind to see who could have been advantaged by such a leak. I deplore leaks of this kind just as much as, in fact, probably rather more than, the right hon. Gentleman. My statement on the VC 10 and on the Ferranti repayment would have had a much better reception in the House if they had not been disclosed before. I was not the gainer by this, nor was my Department in any way. The only gainers were the Opposition, but I am not suggesting that any improper action was taken by the Opposition, though to do so would be much less wild than the charges which have been levied against us.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us no details of the other 13 leaks. He told us that he had a file on the subject. Let us see it. The separate study that I have made shows no indication of one leak, let alone 15, during the last year. I think that the right hon. Gentleman seriously underrates the Press and the methods by which it operates. We realise that he is cross and narked with Mr. Chapman Pincher and the Daily Express for what they have done to expose his sabotage of our exports to Spain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I might add that I have a little list of other contracts which might have been won but for the ideological eccentricities of members of the party opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign !"] Cannot they take it? The

right hon. Gentleman's policies have cost the country a hefty sum of money, and I do not see him getting the money back.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order. It is impossible to hear what the Minister is saying. [Interruption.] Why should not hon. Gentlemen opposite be forced to take their own medicine?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It occurred to me that it was difficult to hear, and I think that it would be better if the House allowed the Minister to make his speech.

Mr. Amery: The difference is that I do not see the right hon. Gentleman getting the money back.
As for the suggestion of an inquiry, I have not seen a shred of evidence produced that would justify it, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should remember that he burnt his fingers on the Bank Rate Tribunal.
In all the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw these allegations, which are disgraceful, which do no credit to him, and which lower the tone of the House of Commons.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I can certainly speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends—and I think I can speak for many hon. Members opposite, if they are honest about it—in saying that we have just listened to a most deplorable speech from the Minister. I could not have believed that any Minister could sink so low as the right hon. Gentleman did this afternoon. If he takes the trouble to analyse his speech he will see that he made an attack on his own Department and on his own civil servants throughout the whole of his half hour's diatribe about this affair. He said, "We really cannot take the best men out of industry, because that is where they have to be," the whole inference being that second-class people were good enough for the Ministry of Aviation.
The way in which he decried his Department was unbelievable. It was an appalling effort by the Minister to shift his responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Listen to what is being said !"] I am grateful to my hon. Friends for asking the Minister to listen to me, but this is


the sort of conduct that he has displayed during his whole time as Minister. He has been absolutely contemptuous of the House. If I wanted to be personal to him this afternoon I would tell him that it does not lie in his mouth to use phrases containing the words "Spain", and "sabotage". Let him remember that, because in the heat of a political battle somebody may be tempted to recall certain things. We remember the great honour that the right hon. Gentleman's father brought to the House when he was a Member.
The Minister talked about the risks in development charges. What risk was there? He took the case of the Argosy contract as an analogy to the Ferranti case, but the Argosy case was a rescue operation by the Government. Ferranti's took no risk in regard to the development of the Bloodhound missile. It came out clearly in the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee that every penny of the development charges was paid for by the Government, and that on top of that Ferranti's collected 5 per cent. Where was the risk?
Even if that were not enough, it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that nearly 80 per cent. of the contract was completed before the price was fixed. There was no risk. How can he say that there was? It is not possible to have the two things at the same time. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he does not know what he is talking about. I wish he did—then he would not have made the sort of silly speech that he made this afternoon. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) is a very courageous politician in his constituency.
There is one serious matter that arises not only from the debate but from the whole proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. If we are to appoint a Select Committee to go into the accounts of the Government in their private contract expenditure, this case may have done the House a great deal of good. because what seems to have been proved is that we must extend the power of the Public Accounts Committee to get books examined. This was public money, and it was rather a contemptuous act on the part of Ferranti's to refuse to give the Public Accounts Committee the relevant books. Nevertheless, even with that

great difficulty in the way of a proper examination, the decisions that we arrived at were very nearly correct. The House must seriously consider extending the powers of the Public Accounts Committee if that Committee is to have any real ability to look after the taxpayers' money.
During the last debate I said, against some protest from hon. Members opposite, that the greatest crime that had been committed was not the filching of this money from the public purse but the way in which it had been done, which had destroyed the confidence that had grown up between the Government and a private contractor. This was the great harm that Ferranti's did. Some hon. Members opposite who are present today objected to what I said then, but the Minister used a somewhat similar phrase this afternoon. If anyone wants confirmation of this I would point out that even the Mr. de Ferranti who is the uncle of the present directors said at the annual meeting of the company that what they had done was to besmirch the proud name of Ferranti. I am told that he owns approximately a quarter of the ordinary shares of the company. He felt that by the company's action they had not only destroyed the trust that had existed between the Government and the contractor but had seriously undermined the standing of the company in the eyes of the people. The House must conclude—backed as it is by the Lang Report—that the company has done something which it will take a long time to eradicate from the minds of the people.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I have no connection whatsoever with Ferranti's, but I ask the hon. Member whether he has looked at Appendix III of the Lang Report. If he has he will know that the company was under no obligation whatsoever to give the details of the cost. It was only if the authority so required. He will see in paragraph (3) that that is specifically stated as being the requirement. Can he find anywhere in the Lang Report an example of an instance where the company refused to give the authority any information that it required?

Mr. Hoy: I do not like saying this about the hon. Gentleman, but in this case, as is so frequently the case, he is off the beam. What I am saying is that


the Public Accounts Committee asked for certain papers from the firm, and that the firm refused to supply them. The firm gave them to the Lang Committee, despite the fact that it had refused them to a Select Committee of the House. If he had really been looking after the honour of the House the hon. Gentleman would have been defending the position that I am taking up.
What does this settlement mean? This is what will interest the taxpayers. The Minister claims credit for having got a repayment of £4¼ million. Let us consider what that means in the context of the job that was done. I have no proof that the Minister was the person who leaked information to the Daily Express, but when that newspaper published his photograph with the caption "Victory for the Minister" we regarded that as the pay-off for the tip-off. Whatever else might be said—and we cannot claim to know what it was—the Minister's defence of this incident was weak in the extreme. He said, "After all, Mr. Pincher was £250,000 out. He only guessed £4 million, whereas it was £4¼ million." It was one of the lamest sentences in his speech, equalled, perhaps, only by his statement that the firm would find it a little inconvenient to repay the money.
Let us get back to the principle on which this contract was established. It was based, as was admitted by Mr. Ferranti and Sir Richard Way—in fact, he gave the information—on a 7 per cent. on-cost basis. This was the basis on which the contract was drawn up. We all know what the total figure was. It was millions of £s out of which Ferranti's agreed to pay £4,250,000 to the Government. But do not let us forget that even after that is done the firm still has in its pockets £1,522,964 of the taxpayers' money—not a return of 7 per cent., but a return of 21·6 per cent.—even after it has paid this money back. [Interruption.]
If hon. Members have any doubt about it let them look up the Lang Report and the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and they will see that it is so. [Interruption.] I can only speak for the taxpayers whom my hon. and right hon. Friends represent, and all I can say is that they resent being exploited by Ferranti or any other form of private enterprise in that way. What the hon.

Member's reply will be to his constituents is for him to say. I do not want to be tempted too far, but when one considers it, how the Government can justify this 21·6 per cent. as being equitable and then say that the postmen are putting pressure on them, I do not know.
I want to say one other thing about what has taken place with regard to certain agreements. I resent very much some of the arrangements that have been entered into as a result of this agreement having been reached. During the investigations of the Public Accounts Committee, I asked Sir Richard Way, the Permanent Under-Secretary, if he had asked the firm of Ferranti to make any repayment, and he informed the Committee that he had receved a letter from Ferranti's which said, "Oh yes, we are prepared to consider making a repayment on condition that you agree that this will not be held against us". I think that was a shocking statement—that when a man is found filching money he hopes that it will not be held against him. If that is the morality of a section of hon. Members opposite, then it has fallen even lower than we thought.
Let me say this in defence of the Permanent Under-Secretary. When replying on behalf of his Department, he said:
My Department could not enter into negotiations under these conditions.
Mr. Ferranti, who proved an extremely bad witness—I would say that in all my years connected with the Committee of Public Accounts he was the worst witness that ever came before us—said, in his letter,
I would be grateful if you could assure me that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Ltd. so far as future contracts are concerned in consequence of what has happened.
I am a little surprised that after the statements made by the Permanent Under-Secretary and the Minister of Aviation, the Permanent Under-Secretary in the concluding sentence of his reply stated:
I can assure you that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Ltd. in the allocation of future contracts.
I am not seeking to say that there should be discrimination. [Interruption.]

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): rose—

Mr. Hoy: I do not think that the Permanent Under-Secretary had any right to write that letter. Certainly he did it for the Minister, but the Minister will not get behind it. In settling this dispute, what had been proven?—that this firm, had accepted a situation to take £4¼ million from the taxpayers' pockets. Why was this necessary at all? This should have been settled on the merits of the case and when it was proved that it had done this, the company should have had no more agreements of this kind. This is a disgraceful case, matched only by the disgraceful performance of the Minister this afternoon, and one can get some consolation out of it only in the knowledge that very soon the country will put it right.

5.27 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I suppose that as this is the last day of a full House of Commons one must expect a certain amount of fireworks, but I would have expected a more statesmanlike speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—than the very personal attack that he made on my right hon. Friend the Minister.
The technique is this. The speaker says that a Minister is responsible and he accuses his ancestry and his marriage and speaks of nepotism—[Interruption.] It was said that it was only nepotism that put my right hon. Friend there. His performance is denigrated, but in fact most of us on this side of the House know how exceedingly well he has done. Then after all this, after all the mud has been flung, one says that one recognises that he was not there at the time. But the mud has been flung, and, naturally, the Leader of the Opposition hopes that it will stick. I do not think that the country will take that sort of criticism. The right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well—he quoted it in his speech—that 90 per cent. of the contract had been delivered a year before my right hon. Friend even came into office, so why this personal attack on his integrity and performance?
I was hoping that we would make a constructive speech and that we would be told by the Leader of the Opposition, who wishes to be taken seriously by the country, just what the Opposition were

going to do in the future. After all, if there has been a mistake in Whitehall it is a mistake among many hundreds of thousands of contracts—[Interruption.] We all recognise that there has been a mistake, otherwise the Lang Committee would not have investigated it and made recommendations. My right hon. Friend would not have started amalgamating two departments and taken the many other actions if there had not been something at fault. Under the right hon. Gentleman's policy, much more would be brought under the control of Whitehall. He aims at the nationalisation of steel. He is going to nationalise development land and to set up tribunals. He is going to nationalise road transport, and the machine tool industry is also threatened. If mistakes are made in Whitehall now, how is he to be sure that when so much control is to be centralised the mistakes will not be far more serious and far more numerous?
We are told in "Signposts for the Sixties" that hon. Members opposite intend to take public control over aircraft firms and science-based industries. There can surely be no greater example of science-based industry than the firm of Ferranti. The right hon. Gentleman also said, and we have heard this also on television, that waste in the defence services is apparently unique to this side of the House. Has he forgotten, or does he wish the country to forget, the Brabazon airliner, and the £3 million—more than twice the estimate—spent on the great Filton sheds, and the £14 million spent on the aircraft?
That was a serious mistake. The Opposition hope that we have forgotten that, but what about the Princess flying-boat? It was six years before Labour cancelled this.

Mr. Archie Manuel: If the hon. Gentleman will consult his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who is something of an expert on aviation, his hon. Friend could tell him that the money was spent on developing the industry which, without the use of that public money, could never have got to its present position.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I say that serious mistakes were made by the party opposite when it was in power. We


remember the Swift fighter, and the 1,000 Venoms ordered for Korea, of which 750 had to be cancelled because they were obsolete. We remember that 800 Canberra bombers were ordered, and that 33 per cent. of them had to be cancelled—tremendous waste. All I say is that in the field of defence no Government can always be right. I have already quoted examples of mistakes on the part of the Opposition, and I can think of many others—

Mr. Paget: rose—

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Sorry, but many hon. Members want to speak.
The Leader of the Opposition said that when fixed-price contracts are used large profits are made—I think that he suggested that the profits were generally excessive, but this is not true. Many of the atomic energy consortia have lost very considerable sums of money in tendering for atomic power stations. They hoped that getting into that business would lead them to business both at home and overseas for other atomic power stations. That has not come about, and very substantial losses have been incurred. Again, civil contractors tendering for motorways and bridges have lost much money, and we also had the Argonaut contract, where £6 million was lost.
It is, therefore, not right to say that fixed-price contracts automatically lead to excessive profits; they often lead to excessive losses as well. What must also be remembered is that when a large profit is made half of it goes at once in taxation to the Exchequer, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been fair he would have recognised that fact, as the country does. If great losses are made these are borne by the shareholders and, to some extent, the employees.
I agree that there are alternate forms of contract. I am very attracted towards the incentive type of contract, where there is a fixed profit margin and if the margin is greater than that the difference is shared between the sponsoring Ministry and the firm. I believe that an instance of this type of contract has already been very successfully carried out by Ferranti Ltd. for special equipment for the TSR2. The firm got the contract completed on time, and the

extra profit was shared—much the greater part of it, I think, going back to the Ministry. That seems to be a sensible arrangement, particularly where a difficult research and development contract is at stake.
I think that the country as a whole has been very disappointed in the Leader of the Opposition, who has typically concerned himself with the personal and trivial in politics. He has made no effort at all to explain his own policy to the country, or to say where he stands. We heard today that, apparently, little companies are to be set up, and civil servants are to be matched, one for one, with the board of directors, and sit in at monthly board meetings. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that that will solve the difficulty? It is one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard of. We have heard very few constructive suggestions, and that suggestion is typical of the right hon. Gentleman. He picks up the dust of politics and sweeps the policy under the carpet. He asks the country to give him a blank cheque, but I am pretty sure that in October the country will refuse to give it to him.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: Although hon. Members do not know it, they have just listened to a statesmanlike and constructive speech. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) started by complaining of a lack of statesmanship and constructiveness in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and, needless to say, such a great Parliamentarian, so distinguished a Member with such a long and illustrious Ministerial career behind him, would not fall short, I am sure—at least in intention—of the example that he was begging my right hon. Friend to follow.
I never make any complaint about being controversial—indeed, that is what we are here for. I come to this subject, not as a financial expert, but because I am interested in defence. I started by asking this question: how far is this Ferranti case typical? How much more of this sort of thing is going on? I will repeat figures that I have given before, and say that, in the last 12 years, £20,000 million has been spent


on defence. About £5,000 million has gone into the aircraft industry, and about £3,500 million have gone on public account, and if this sort of thing is widespread the situation is very serious, indeed.
I am not convinced that it is widespread. I am convinced that, on the whole, it is an isolated instance, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who made such a frank and outstanding speech, that one of the evil things that the Ferranti firm has done has been to destroy the confidence between private industry and Government—whatever Government is in power. I should like the Chancellor to tell the House whether it is not true that there have been numbers of examples of firms engaged in this business which, when they have found themselves in the Ferranti position, have told the Government what has happened and have offered to make an adjustment. I believe that the record of this industry and the probity of those engaged in it are outstanding, and in common with the commercial practice throughout our industrial life as a whole.
Equally, I entirely join with my right hon. Friend in saying that when one refers to leaks, one is not making an attack on the Press. As I have said so many times that I ought to apologise for saying it again, I do not believe that we can ever get a sound defence policy within the country's capacity to pay unless we have an informed public opinion. This House is only one instrument for that—the other instruments are the Press, and the other media of communication such as television, radio, and the like.
I therefore pay my tribute to men like Chapman Pincher, the defence correspondent of The Times, the defence correspondent of the Daily Telegraph—and, indeed, to all the newspapers which employ intelligent and public-spirited men to ascertain the facts and put them before the public. I do not think that Mr. Chapman Pincher did anything very dreadful about the frigates. He got hold of a simple fact—he got to know that the negotiations were on. I had a very civilised discussion with the Civil Lord

of the Admiralty—to use the old title—on the night of 15th July. Neither of us gave way on principle, but we managed to establish the fact that there had been a leak. One need not go further than the Foreign Secretary who, on 15th June, said that there had been a disclosure. There is nothing wrong about this—more power to Mr. Chapman Pincher's elbow.
A week ago it was perfectly clear that there had been a disclosure of one fact and Mr. Chapman Pincher, like the great journalist he is, had taken one bone and made a meat pie of it. But I have done some homework and it has been a formidable task. I have looked over the major organs of the Press over the last year and I am singularly short of sleep in consequence. If the hon. Member wants 15 examples, why not talk about 1,500? I do not want to mention newspapers, because I do not want to appear to put them in the dock, but I will give the examples to the Prime Minister if he wants them.
On 25th February there was an account in the public Press of the Augusta Bell helicopter which was to be bought up to a total of 150. Immediately there was a controversy. Hon. Members opposite representing Belfast wanted the Hiller helicopter to be bought. The Americans came over here and spoke to hon. Members from both sides of the House. There was great argument as to what should be bought, and five weeks later the Minister announced that 150 Augusta Bells were to be bought.
There was the question of the Defence White Paper. Mr. Chapman Pincher, on the eve of the debate, complained that the secrets of the White Paper had already been leaked. To go back to November last year there were accounts in all the Press of four major projects, the HS681, the Sea Vixen and Hunter replacement and the purchase of the Phantoms. On 20th November, the Minister of Defence gave an account in answer to the House which confirmed the statements which had been circulating.
Whether we call this a leak or guiding the Press, what is perfectly clear and what the right hon. Gentleman has never faced in this serious problem which confronts all hon. Members and will confront


them in future is that we cannot have a defence policy in this country if we try to argue: it on this basis. It cannot be done. We cannot get the VC 10 right if the Minister and his Department are giving their aspect of the matter and B.O.A.C. gives another, with Sir George Edwards jumping in for good measure.
Our defence policy has deteriorated to the point where the arguments are being carried out on a selective basis through journals of the Press. The stories which are being presented are those which suit those who are presenting them. This is what is wrong, because what is being done is to pollute public opinion. The Prime Minister is a charming man but he knows nothing about defence. He is at this too. He goes about the country and talks about the nuclear deterrent.
We have had this over and over again and the facts are perfectly simple. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has touched on one aspect and I will deal with another. If hon. Members opposite want to put this problem fairly in front of their constituents or to journalists let them give an account of the atomic weapons which we have now. The answer is none. Let them give an account of the strategic weapons which we have deployed. The answer again is none, but what is the point of arguing? We have to do the best we can.
It is obvious to all of us that it is a prime requirement of this country that we should have an electronic industry which is in the forefront of the world. We cannot compete with the Americans but we should do our best. If a symposium were taken of hon. Members on both sides of the House they would answer that the Bloodhound was made by Ferranti. This is not true. The people who conceived the prime components are the British Aircraft Corporation, not Ferranti who were the boys in a small aspect of the game.
What has happened is that the country, with the connivance of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, has had the worst of all worlds. There is perhaps a case for monopoly in some aspects of this industry which can only be dealt with on a monopoly basis, and one can ask whether that monopoly should be publicly or privately owned. If we are to have it on the basis of private enterprise all the

firms engaged in the industry should be allowed to compete, but that is not what happened. What has happened is that a monopoly has been given consistently by the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, to Ferranti and the country has had to pay dearly for it. I could give many examples of this.
One thing which astonishes me today is that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti) is not present. I ought to have given him notice. I should have thought that at some stage in the operation we should have had a statement from him. I gave him notice on 29th April, but on that occasion he never made a speech and he has never made a statement.
The hon. Member became a junior Minister in the Ministry of Aviation in July, 1962, and in July, 1962 there is not a shadow of doubt that every member of the Ferranti family who was in an executive position knew jolly well that the firm had made a profit of £5,750,000. Yet the hon. Member took office in the Government and was going to sit in judgment on other firms engaged in the electronic industry. He thought that the firm would get away with it but the Comptroller and Auditor-General stopped the game and it did not get away with it.
I am the last person to want to penalise the firm of Ferranti, but it is utterly untrue to say that it is the only firm which could have done this job. Half-a-dozen other firms engaged in the industry could have done the job just as well as Ferranti, and they are firms whose record for probity and technical skill is just as high. We ought not to be committed to this firm.
As Mr. Chapman Pincher says in a new article this firm, without competition, is once again to be given the P1154. If the firm is the best for the job, well and good, but it should be because it is the best and not because it has been forced to pay back £4· million. This should not be a pourboire for the firm because it has been forced to do what it should have done in the first instance. It would be quite intolerable.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I have not consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti) about it, but I have always understood that he had to make up his


mind quickly when offered office. He took it and did his best to divest himself of his holding in Ferranti, and having found it impossible to divest himself he resigned his office. That seems to me thoroughly honourable conduct.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Member puzzles me. We have yet failed to plumb the depths of stupidity. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, of course, had to divest himself of his financial holding. I am not arguing about that. All I say is that in July, 1962 he as a director of Ferranti must have known that the firm had made £5¾ million and how it had been done, because Sir John Lang has spelled it out. He says that the profit was excessive and that the firm was not as forthcoming as it might have been.
The firm had the opportunity to put in a price for the remaining 20 per cent. of the contract knowing full well that it had put its hands in the public purse and had made a profit which Sir John Lang and his colleagues have described as excessive. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale as a member of the Ferranti firm should have come to the House and given an explanation. It may be that there is one, but according to the traditions of the House he should have told us what had happened. I find it extremely difficulty, in these circumstances, to accept the statements of Ferranti Ltd., or of the Minister on behalf of the company. I think that there is a lot more behind this which we have not been told, but I think that it is confined to Ferranti Ltd. and there ought to be a thoroughgoing investigation.
I want to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, North on the the question of nationalisation. If it is any comfort to him I will fight the nationalisation of the industry with all the strength that I can command, for the same reason that I would oppose the nationalisation of Rolls Razors. Why we should nationalise it and take over some intolerable burden of compensation for something which, for the most part, is not worth twopence is completely beyond me. What I would do with this industry—and I shall urge the Labour Government to do so—is far worse. I would investigate it, including the firm of the hon. Member

for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). I would investigate these firms retropectively. I would want to find out where this money has gone, in the interests of the defence needs of this country.
Of course, under any system mistakes will be made, but the idea that the red herring of nationalisation should be drawn across this trail seems to me to miss the point wilfully. I should have thought that the kind of democracy that we have only functions under this simple condition that the things which unite us are wider and deeper than the things which divide us. When we all look at the defence problem, we must regret it. We on this side of the House instinctively do, and so, I believe, do hon. Members opposite. We would all rather see this money spent on schools, hospitals, housing and the like. All spending on defence, particularly in this field, is a waste. Some defence spending keeps one in the forefront of technical knowledge and, therefore, it must be undertaken, but I say—I have said it before and I do not apologise for repeating it—that we ought to try to get defence right above the party battle.
There is a recommendation of a Select Committee which has only just reported. It was under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House. It recommended that in the new Parliament a look should be taken at the way in which our Defence Estimates are presented and investigated. It is through the machinery of investigation set up by the House and answerable to the House that this mistake has been discovered. It is absolutely certain that under any Administration, and whatever form of ownership may be adopted, other mistakes will be made, but we cannot even begin to get this right until we get an informed public opinion because in the long run the issue of whether we have Bloodhound Mark I or Bloodhound Mark II, or Seaslug or Seacat, or Phantom or an aircraft carrier, depends not upon whether our politics are Labour or Tory, not on our emotions, but on an objective examination of the facts.
This House is the bar of public opinion. These matters have reached a point of such complexity and difficulty that they ought to be hammered out where experts can give their evidence and opinions can be expressed to the House. If this


mistake has focussed attention on this problem, even though it has cost us £5¾ million, it will not have been wasted.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: Nobody would at any time doubt the honesty of the views of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) or his interest in defence, but I must say that I was more than a little shocked to hear him suggest, as an incipient threat to all industry, that if power rested on his side of the House he would attempt to bring about an investigation which would make McCarthy look like nothing. This is exactly the sort of "McWiggery" that would do nobody any good.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No!

Mr. Emery: Indeed, the only thing that it would achieve would be to a much greater extent upset the whole workings of industry, whether it was working for defence or otherwise.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who has now left the Chamber, tried to draw very strong parallels between the amount of profitability of this whole Ferranti contract and the recent wage awards. In all fairness—and at times he attempted to be be fair, though not often—this is spread over a period of at least five and probably six years. If one is attempting to be fair and reasonable, that surely must be taken into account.
I think there was a suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition which needs the most careful investigation. I refer to the suggestion—it was thrown away quietly—that there should be new companies with 50 per cent. Government holding to deal with all development contracts for the defences of this country. I only hope that we on this side may hear a lot more about this in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Cyril Bence: You will.

Mr. Emery: It ill-behoves hon. Members opposite to sit there quietly saying, "We are not interested in nationalisation or in public ownership". When an hon. Member opposite shouted, "Yes, let us nationalise it", there was a ghastly silence from the rest of his colleagues. Their view is, "You must

not talk about this before the election. It will be all right to do so afterwards".

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member raised an extremely important point when he talked about the time period. May I turn to paragraph 17 of the Lang Committee's Report—[Interruption.]—I speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. That paragraph stated:
It is not clear to us why these particular periods were chosen or what influenced the selection of periods of this length.
That refers to the 4s. 8d. and the 4s. 3d. It is crucial to the whole argument. Does it not appear that the technical cost officers said to Ferranti, "Look here, what is your figure? We have not got a clue. Give us your advice. Does it not seem rather as if—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member's intervention is becoming unduly long. Mr. Emery.

Mr. Emery: As usual, that was wide of the point. We are talking about the period of profitability which the hon. Member should have realised, having read the Report so carefully, runs from 1957 to 1962. Three things are very important in this whole consideration. First, there is the financial position during the whole of these negotiations. One must realise that when the contract came for negotiation, half-way through the running of this contract the Government were in possession of all the information of which Ferranti were in possession on the levels of the mistakes in costings.
It seems to me to be asking for more than the superhuman, when a fixed contract is being negotiated, to expect these facts then and there to be thrust down the Government's throat. Anyone who expects that can have no understanding of the negotiation of contracts. Moreover, variables, unknowns or enigmas could still have arisen during the following two years of the contract, there was no certainty at that time that the level of profitability would continue.
The implication of what is said is that contractors and purchasers should all be "buddies together" in a rather unusual relationship of buyer and supplier. If that were to happen, economy would fly out of the window and there would be


far more than £4£ million lost. Government Departments must be harsh and keen in their commercial estimates of prices and costs. Heaven help this country if they are not. This probing and critical approach means that tenderers and contractors are on their toes and are spending money in order to obtain greater efficiency and productivity and to reduce costs. If we work the other way round, none of these advantages will obtain.
If Government Departments behave in this way, as I am absolutely certain that they should, it is asking the superhuman to expect a contractor, having placed the cards in the Government's hands, to point out the aces and even, perhaps, tell them how to play the hand so that he loses the trick. This cannot and will not be done in any form of commercial negotiations, whatever hon. and right hon. Members opposite or we might say.
This brings me to the matter of profitability. The Lang criticism is that profit margins here were more than a fair and reasonable profit, but it should be noted that Lang himself has not so far gone on to say what the level of that fair and reasonable profit should be. It would be quite wrong to imagine that there is a figure generally understood, and the idea that, generally, the Government suggest that, on cost-plus contracts, a level of 7 per cent. profitability is considered reasonable or equitable would require the closest examination. If that is their view, we cannot do other than expect industry to pad its overheads and other figures because, in many instances, it is not a working profit. If, for instance, firms have had to borrow money and, perhaps, pay 6 per cent., they would obtain only a 1 per cent. return on their investment.
There is one sentence in the Lang Report, on page 3, which has not been mentioned so far but which merits close consideration, that is, the reference to the fact that Ferranti Ltd.
urged that it is not right to consider the profits on a project of this kind in isolation from consequential costs which might arise after its completion and from profits on other work within the company ".
It is impossible if one expects to hold to a limit of 7 per cent.; if one does hold to that, one must expect industry to try to find ways of getting a greater profit.
The Government should realise that, at times, their own policies encourage industry to be less than frank. Let us admit this fact during the debate. As regards cost-plus contracts, one should realise also that it is widely understood in industry that there are certain sets of rules which have to be met in order to satisfy the estimators. As long as those rules are met, one can stretch a number of other things which are not mentioned in the rules and so pad the cost estimates.
An outstanding example of this sort of thing reached me only yesterday. A firm with a Government contract was encouraged to make special and highly secret reports to the Government. A small printing plant was put in for this purpose, and the overheads were, therefore included, enlarging the overheads taken into consideration in the estimates. With a view to using this plant profitably, the firm decided to set up another small company to operate it. All the overheads were immediately not acceptable, not even a percentage such as would have represented the same charge as was previously acceptable. Therefore, in order to meet the rules and procedures of the contracts department, the firm decided not to launch the other company. In the result, working according to the present regulations, the whole of the printing overheads, not just a proportion, are now taken into consideration in the costing of this particular defence contract.
One of the problems here arises from the lack of flexibility in negotiations at a level when such flexibility is necessary to produce the right sort of result. I do not in any way wish to be thought critical of the civil servants of the contracts department, but I must say frankly that it does not make sense that the whole of the defence contract work is under the control of a man who is paid only £4,250 a year and who is in the executive branch, not the administrative branch, of the Civil Service. It makes nonsense of this form of negotiation, and the same is true of the arrangements whereby the final recommendations for these contracts with Ferranti were being dealt with by men paid £1,250 to £1,500 a year.
I have made a number of inquiries during the week, and I can tell the


House that such salaries in industry are paid to buyers who, on their own initiative, might spend between £200 and £2,000. I was told by one person that, at the very top, a man of that calibre might have authority to spend £5,000. It is no good saying that we have not got men of the right calibre to do this work. We shall not get them unless we pay them properly. That stands out as plain as the nose on my face or the nose on anyone else's face in the Chamber this afternoon.
On the purchasing side, a number of other factors in regard to the contracts department concern me. First, is there any incentive for these men to take the professional examinations of the bodies dealing with buying either in the public supply service or in industry? Is any time given up in order that they may take courses on the industrial side of purchasing? It does not make sense just to promote civil servants up through the ranks and expect them to be able to move, so long as they keep their noses clean, to the top of the contracts department and deal with the vast matters of negotiation which arise when contracts of this sort are being let.
One must realise also that there has, at times, been in the Government's Contracts Department a "Holier than thou" attitude on the part of some of the officials. "There is a lot of difference between buying for the Government and buying for profit—that is, for industry". So runs the argument of many people on the Government contract side. This is nonsense when applied to the difference which may exist between the Civil Service and industry, to just as great a nonsense as applies to the differences which exist between the various departments of the Civil Service Contracts Department.
In any large scale contract in industry the consumer, the purchaser, follows up his order by establishing a close contact with the supplier during the production period. In the Civil Service this form of liaison should be a main aspect of the relationship between consumer and the supplier, since the consumer is the public and is handling public money.
Another factor all too frequently forgotten in the Civil Service is that the head buyer or the head of the contracts

department must go to examine what is happening in plants when this sort of large scale contract is being carried out. I should like to know how many senior members of the contracts department visited the shop floor during production over these four years of the Ferranti contracts. These matters cannot be controlled by accountants or estimators. It is necessary during the production period to get on the shop floor and to see what is going on. An inexperienced buyer but otherwise most capable civil servant may lack this specialised training. This is not his fault. It is because he has not been given the opportunity or, indeed, the encouragement to get it.
Realising this fact, one of the professional associations in purchasing, on 2nd August last year, made an offer to the Ministry of Defence to produce a committee of senior industrialists to advise on the structure of the new purchasing departments in the new Ministry of Defence. Here was a golden opportunity when all of the military buying was being combined. I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence accepted this offer with open arms. His memory was jogged about two months later, and a meeting was arranged between a head civil servant and myself to see what assistance could be given. I was able to tell the civil servant the calibre of the committee which could be available to give this advice.
Hon. Members will realise the calibre of the committee when I give its proposed make-up: a director of the Ford Motor Co.; the ex-Director-General of Purchasing and Supply of the National Coal Board; a chief buyer in the electronics industry; the buying manager for a major steel company in South Wales; and the buying manager of a leading firm in the aircraft industry. This Committee epitomises the commercial knowledge available to the Government if they wish to avail themselves of it. I am sorry to have to say this, but since that meeting nothing has happened in the way of co-operation or in bringing about a further meeting. Men of this calibre do not do this for themselves. They do it only in the national interest. Now I should like to ask, therefore, whether my right hon. Friend is willing to accept their advice.
The method of fixing prices and contracts needs a radical overhaul and the Ministry needs to examine closely the methods by which this is done in industry. There is need entirely to revamp the pay structure of the directorates of contracts, and this must be made an administrative rather than an executive grade if the correct men are to be obtained. Let it be realised that a 2 per cent. saving on this year's defence buying would amount to between £18 million and £20 million. Surely economies of this sort would meet any extra pay which would have to be found in reorganising the pay structure of this section of the Civil Service.
We should realise that, in spite of the Opposition's jeers, the country should be grateful to the Minister of Aviation for negotiating the £4£ million return to the Government, and also to Ferranti for making this offer. Whatever criticism there may have been in the past, this is a public-spirited action. There is, I believe, no legal or contractual obligation on Ferranti to make any repayment, and the Government must realise this. In the end, both the Government and Ferranti come reasonably well out of this affair.

Mr. John Diamond: rose—

Mr. Emery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Speaker's eye so that he will be able to make his own speech.
Strangely enough, this is the epitome of this rather sordid affair, because a good bargain must be equally rewarding to both buyer and seller. It falls down if that is not the case. This must be the essence of a good contract, whether it is made by industry or by the Government.
I have seldom heard such a diatribe in an attack on any Minister who has been doing his very best for an industry. I have been in the House for only five years—and I will be back. I have driven my predecessor to Poplar, where I started. Although the Sunday Times had me out by 2 per cent., I saw the person who wrote the article in question five weeks before the last General Election—I have known Mr. David Butler for many years—and he said to me, in

friendship, "Peter, I am sorry, you have not got a chance". He was 4,000 votes out, and he will be more than that out this time.
Some hon. Members opposite should consult a little more closely those in the aviation industry to see what they think of my right hon. Friend, not what the hoi polloi think—and if the cap fits, it may be worn. It is what the aviation industry thinks of my right hon. Friend which matters, and I believe that those in the industry have as high a regard for him as we have on these benches.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Unfortunately, this is a short debate, and I apologise to hon. Members on both sides for rising to speak at this moment. It will, however, I think meet the convenience of the House if the debate comes to an end promptly at seven o'clock.
This has been a bad day for the Minister, for Ferranti Ltd and for private enterprise. I do not think that anything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say in a few moments can salvage any of the reputation of the Minister of Aviation, or add to his credibility as a Minister of the Crown.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) spoke as if this was an inquest on a nationalised industry. What mistakes were made in the Ministry of Aviation was the Department's failure to cope with the rather shifty behaviour of a private company.
Having said that, I must remember that I am still Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I occupied the Chair throughout the whole of the investigation on this regrettable affair. It was thought by my hon. Friends that I might have something to contribute to the debate, having remained silent through earlier discussions on this matter.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Houghton: I have only just begun my speech and I wish to get through my remarks in time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to rise at a reasonable time.
What I must say is that the damage that Ferranti has done to itself spreads far wider than the boundaries of its own firm or family. I agree with my hon.
Friends who have said that it will take a long time to reshape and improve the image of private industry in its relations with the Government on massive contracts of this kind. That is a most unfortunate consequence of Ferranti's failure to deal candidly and, in my opinion, squarely with the Government.
Tributes have been paid, and rightly, to the Public Accounts Committee and also to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I wonder, however, whether the House realises the slender and even fortuitous basis upon which the discovery was made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. All the reforms announced by the Minister today and all the decisions which he has taken since the Report of the Public Accounts Committee stem from the persistence and skill of officers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department.
Perhaps the House does not realise what lack of encouragement the Comptroller and Auditor-General's officers were given when they were pressing their investigations in the Ministry of Aviation. One has only to turn to paragraphs 51 to 53 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report on the Appropriation Accounts to see—I quote from paragraph 51—that when the Comptroller and Auditor-General's men had drawn attention to the disparity between the two sets of figures, which never came together,
The Ministry challenged certain assumptions in my officers' calculations and pointed to the absence of information as to the amount of subcontracting which, in their opinion, made the comparison invalid.
Some officers might have been fobbed off by that. They may have been discouraged from going further. The fact is that the Ministry did not know the extent of subcontracting. How, therefore, did it know that it would invalidate the comparison? When Sir John Lang went into it, he found that the extent of subcontracting was £123,000 only, amounting at most to £40,000 in direct labour costs. That was negligible in relation to the computation of total direct labour costs. That was proved by Sir John Lang to have been an unnecessary fear put into the minds of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's officers that to pursue these inquiries would be abortive.
Secondly, we see from paragraph 3 of the Comptroller and Auditor

General's Report that when he asked the Ministry why these two sets of figures had not been put together, the reply given by the Ministry was that it was a method of cross-checking which was only of value in exceptional circumstances and they had not realised that it could have been used in this case. That was the beginning of the inquiry. One welcome announcement made by the Minister this afternoon was that in future, the accounting department will be brought together with the technical cost officers so that in future these comparisons, when they can be usefully made, will be made. Sir John Lang recommended this in paragraph 45 and the Minister has adopted it.
Therefore, in an episode in which there is, unfortunately, much to criticise of the work of civil servants in the Ministry, the House can be gratified that those who are in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General at least discharged their duty with diligence, skill and persistence. Had they not done so, none of this would have come before the House, the Public Accounts Committee or anyone else.
The Permanent Secretary told the Public Accounts Committee in his evidence that he had no inkling of anything of this until 14th August, 1963, and only then when the Comptroller and Auditor-General sent some formal inquiries to the Ministry asking for explanations of what had been discovered. Therefore, this would have been undiscovered had it not been for the persistence of the officers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I come next to the rôle of the Public Accounts Committee. Here, I have the opportunity of saying how much I resented, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, not being informed of the Government's intentions to set up the Lang Committee on 24th January, the day that the Comptroller and Auditor-General reported to us, and without any consultation whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister made a kind of takeover bid for the Public Accounts Committee. They must have known that this step would, at the very least, be an embarrassment to the Public Accounts Committee. It was a mark of discourtesy, if not actually of disrespect, both to the Public Accounts Committee and to this House.
We have our normal traditional procedures. The Comptroller and Auditor-General makes his Reports to the House of Commons. At the begnning of each Session, the House elects a Public Accounts Committee to receive and investigate the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Why, then, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Mnister never give the Public Accounts Committee an opportunity either of expressing a view upon this or of getting on with the job itself? We shall never know what the motives were for this panic measure, taken on the very day of the publication of this damaging Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
One may suspect that it was the Chancellor's intention to shut the stable door with a loud bang and to lock Sir John Lang inside, believing that he would have enough to do to occupy his time until after a June election, if there was one, and probably until after an October election. There can be no complaint that the Public Accounts Committee does not get on with its job properly and expeditiously. We began our examination of this matter on 18th February, only 18 sitting days after the publication of the Report. We made our Report to the House early in April and it was able to debate the matter on 29th April, long before the Lang Committee could possibly have reported. I think that in future Ministers must pay regard to the existence of the Public Accounts Committee, however panic-stricken they feel about disclosures which they think they would prefer to deal with by alternative means.
Now another word about the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. As we knew that the Lang Committee was sitting we had to take special care to sift the facts as far as we could, to be temperate and fair in our comments and judgment, because anything we said in our Report would be subject to this special supplementary audit of the Lang Committee. It would have been damaging to the Public Accounts Committee had our findings been the subject of some disagreement by the Lang Committee. As it turned out, nothing whatever—not a single word—in our Report is invalidated by the Lang Report. On the contrary, if one looks at the Public

Accounts Committee's Report now with the underlinings of the findings of the Lang Committee, it looks very much like a three-line Whip.
We said the profit was excessive, and Lang says so, too. The only reason our estimate of profit on cost was so much lower, nearly 20 per cent. lower, than was found to be the case by the Lang Committee was that we reduced our estimate from 72 per cent. profit on cost to 63 per cent. profit on cost because Mr. Ferranti had told the Public Accounts Committee that the company had made a loss of something like £500,000 on materials.
Now, when we go into the Lang Report, Appendix I and Appendix II, we see the company lost nothing like £500,000, not even anything approaching the modified figure which we got later on of £372,000. In fact, unless we add tooling and test gear as part of the cost of materials, which I understand it is not the practice to do, Ferranti finished up on the right side on materials and made no loss at all, and so that made the difference between our estimate of profit on cost and that arrived at earlier of 72 per cent., and now we see finally, in the Lang Report, 82 per cent.
It is true that the survey of the Lang Committee covers 40 contracts and not 18 as we did, but the difference in gross cost between the 40 and the 18 is only just over £1 million, though astonishingly enough the difference in profit on cost is £850,000 more on a difference of only £1 million in total cost. That is an extraordinary figure for which there is no explanation in the Lang Report or elsewhere.
This brings me to the Lang Report. The Lang inquiry reveals a great more than was available to the Public Accounts Committee, and both the Ministry and Ferranti Ltd. has come out worse from the Lang Committee than they came out of the Public Accounts Committee. More light was thrown upon two important matters, which, try as we did, never came to light—first the actual outturn on the Bloodhound contracts which Mr. Ferranti refused to disclose, second, how it came about that the Ministry's technical cost officers overestimated direct labour costs by over 100 per cent.
On the first question, that of profits, I must say that the work of the Public


Accounts Committee was impeded by Mr. Ferranti's persistent refusal to put all his cards on the table. He was a most engaging young man, pleasant to have before one hour after hour. But he did not "come clean". When we asked him what profit he made from these contracts he would not tell us. We did not ask for his books. We merely wanted the figure, and it would have been easy enough for him to have given it.
Here, let me say that it was necessary for me to go into many constitutional and procedural matters in connection with the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. I think that it will be necessary to clear up very soon what are the real powers of a Select Commit tee to call for persons and papers. We move around in Select Committees feeling we have the power of summons and the power to compel production, but when one goes into the precedents one is by no means so sure that we can; indeed, as I was advised, and went into it, it rather looked as if it might be necessary for the Committee to come to this House, table a Motion, have it debated, get it passed, before we could call for persons and papers.
Anyhow, that is a matter wrapped in considerable procedural complexity and antiquity. I only say, speaking as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that I could not see my way through the problem if we met with unexpected obstruction in the discharge of our duties.
Mr. Ferranti seemed to think, in being asked to disclose the outturn of these contracts, that he would be transgressing some commercial principle or other. Well now, some people who make over-much of principle have not a scruple to their name, and there is no doubt that the Minister of Defence must have employed some very tough tactics indeed with Mr. Ferranti before he could be persuaded to offer to produce his books and open his files. We persistently asked Mr. Ferranti for nothing like that, but only for the profit figure; but he refused to give it.
Now we do have the truth. We were very near to it. We pieced the figures together as best we could. We asked all the questions we could think of which may have given us circumstantial evidence on which to produce a judgment. We did that. We put our figures in the

Report and there is nothing much wrong with them even now, though our estimate of profit was an underestimate and not an overestimate.
On the second point of the astonishing mistake made by the Ministry officials on the estimates of direct labour costs, we could well understand the difficulty of Sir Richard Way, the Permanent Secretary, who, as I said earlier, got to hear of this only at the latter end of last year, and he did not really have time to probe into it when he came before us to give evidence in February. That point is gone into fully by the Lang Committee. Further reports will undoubtedly be necessary before it will be possible to be satisfied that the Ministry is equipped for its task.
I think that the central and fundamental condition of these contracts, as has repeatedly been said, is fair and reasonable prices. The contract was signed without a single price in it. The prices were to be fixed much later on in the contract, but they had to be fair and reasonable prices.
There is every evidence to suggest that Ferranti knew how well it was doing out of the contract by the time it came to quote prices and agree the fixed price contract. I think that there is enough evidence in our Report, in the evidence to our Report, in the Minister's own statement of 29th April and in the Lang Committee Report to prove that Ferranti knew that it was asking for a price which conflicted quite radically indeed with the principle of fair and reasonable prices, which was the prime condition of the contract.
Where I think the Government are to be indicted in the whole of this unhappy affair is that they have failed in the primary duty to ensure that Departments are fully equipped to take care of the public interest in their financial and contractual relations with suppliers of goods and services. I am not suggesting that civil servants, whether technical cost officers or inspectors of taxes, should treat people as though they were unreliable, and still less as though they were dishonest, but they should be able to discover and cope with people who are.
That is where the Minister has lamentably failed. It is obvious from the Lang Report that the Ministry was no match


for a contractor of the attitude and skill and grasping nature of a firm like Ferranti. Mr. Ferranti kept silent when any other honourable man would have spoken, and the Ministry was not able to compel him to speak, because the silence on his part was on an occasion when the Ministry had no figures to contradict those of Ferranti; and that is a lamentable condition for any negotiators to be in.
So I say that defects of administration are the responsibility of the Minister and the Treasury. If the civil servants are doing their best under whatever conditions are imposed on them, then the responsibility must go higher up. It must go right to the top. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a good deal to answer for in this connection. He has a special responsibility for the Civil Service. But it is too late now for the Government to find the remedies for the deficiencies which have been there so long and which have come to light so late and which need drastic overhaul in the Ministry to put right.
The Government finish this Parliament the melancholy victims of a grasping contractor. They see their much cherished commercial principles exposed for what they are. If a Government Department had behaved like Ferranti, the business would have denounced it as squalid bureaucracy. If this had happened under a Labour Government, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said that we had been foxed and boxed all round the compass, and the hounds would have been in full cry.
For our part, we approach this unpleasant episode more in sorrow than in anger. It is a sad experience to see the name of a firm dragged through the Press and the "pub", abused and scorned. Indeed, Ferranti got himself into this mess because the Ministry had not the equipment to stop him, any more than it had the equipment to safeguard the public interest or protect the public purse. It had not the means to do it. The Motion deplores the failure of the Ministry in that regard.
Some changes in machinery, staff and expertise will be necessary. The fundamental problem is the relationship between the Government and contractors. If hon. Members want to read some

sensible remarks on that subject, they should read what I said in the debate on 11th December last year, which the Minister of Defence did me the honour of quoting and endorsing in the debate on 29th April.
This new relationship, stressed from our side and endorsed from the Minister's side, will have to come, but not in this Parliament. The Government are now to be cashiered for neglect of duty and wilful default, for incompetence, and on the evidence they will be convicted. Sentence will be announced, if not tonight, in October. The punishment will be dismissal from Her Majesty's service, and the country hopes never to see their like again.

6.45 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) started by saying that the damage done by this affair stretched beyond Ferranti Limited and family to embrace industry generally. This need not happen and should not happen. It depends entirely on how the matter is treated. In this I very much agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who said that it was an isolated instance, rather than with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who described the electronics industry as shark-infested waters.
As for the allegation made by both speakers from the Opposition Front Bench that the Lang Committee was appointed, as it were, to muzzle the Public Accounts Committee, this is absolute nonsense. As soon as we heard of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it was apparent to me and to my right hon. Friend that a close investigation was urgently needed. That investigation did not in any way at all impede the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, as was said by the hon. Member for Sowerby, the Lang Committee's Report underlined many of the things which his Committee said. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that we were discourteous in not informing him before the announcement. I tried personally several times to get in touch with him, but failed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am giving the House the truth.
To come to the real problem involved in the debate, the difficulties facing any Government in making contracts on a


satisfactory basis with private industry in conditions where competitive tenders cannot be obtained are great, as the hon. Member pointed out. Any Government would have to deal—I am sure that even the Labour Party would agree with this—with private industry in these matters. Cost plus, as the hon. Gentleman said, is not satisfactory. The Select Committee called attention to this on a number of occasions. We must, if possible, avoid cost plus. Sometimes it is unavoidable, particularly in development and research contracts, but we must avoid it wherever possible for production contracts. We must look for some form of fixed price contract which gives an incentive to efficiency and economy. The best system is to arrive at some fixed price in the contract. This is bound to give rise to the opportunity for big profits and to the opportunity for big losses. My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) and Reading (Mr. Emery) and others rightly pointed out that genuine risks are taken in these matters, and that companies can lose money, and do lose money, on fixed price contracts. Examples have been quoted.
But the difference in this case was—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) was right in this—that no risk was taken. I quite accept that this was not a case where genuine risk was taken—as the Lang Report says—because of the knowledge in the hands of the company at the time. It was because no risk was involved that I thought it right to insist on the refund to the Government of the £4¼ million. But I would like to make clear the view of the Government that if that were not the case, and if the fixed price were reached on a fair and equal basis by both sides, people would be entitled to the rewards of their efficiency.
There are, of course, problems, and there remains the problem that for genuine reasons, in the complexity of modern industry and production, it is possible to make errors in estimating fixed prices for contracts which can lead to large profits or large losses. This problem we must try to eliminate, because it is not in the interests either of contractors or of taxpayers that we should have a system of fixed price contracts where the margin on either

side is too wide. This is a problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his opening speech.
We shall, of course, be helped considerably by the second Report of the Lang Committee on this problem, but in the meantime it seems that there is scope, for example, in examining the extension of the target price system, where a target price is fixed and the actual costs are calculated ex post facto so that the profit or loss, if there is one, is shared between the Government and the contracting firm.
This is a better method of achieving this objective than the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for a form of semi-nationalisation which, frankly, would not, I think, really be effective in practice. I think that it would be a pretty good dog's breakfast if we tried it. It would be a less effective way of achieving what we both have in mind than by having a contract system where the risks are shared, leaving the firm an opportunity of a reasonable return for additional efficiency but sharing the profits and losses, thereby being fair to both sides.
Another thing which emerges is that the early fixing of prices is desirable. On the one hand, if price fixing is left too late in the contract we get the disadvantage that a firm is in the possession of knowledge which is not in the possession of the Ministry's own estimators, and that enables it, if it wants to make changes, to do so on the basis of the new information; and on the other hand, if, as has been suggested, price fixing is left too late and then changed to actual cost, we are getting back to cost-plus with the disadvantages of cost-plus. There, if the management feels that it can make improvements in efficiency the only result at the end is that the Ministry cuts down the price, and the contractor will not get that efficiency which we wish to obtain from the fixed price system.
These appear to be the main points which emerge on the general principle of Government contracting, which, T think, are accepted on both sides of the House. It is extraordinarily difficult to get it right and to get a system which protects the taxpayer and encourages efficiency and economy.
Turning to this particular case and what went wrong, three main things stand out from the Lang Committee Report. In the first place, there was an error of judgment, an error in estimating the direct labour cost. In the second place, there was the danger of error in the estimation of overheads arising from the isolation of the technical services on the one hand and the accountancy services on the other. Finally, there was the failure to use the available check, which was not used until the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Committee spotted it.
On this point, I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby that it was a very ingenious and effective piece of work to discover this check, as was done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In the electronics industry it is only in the rarest case that we have circumstances where such a check is possible, whereas for aircraft and airframes one can do it. That is not so in the case of the electronics industry, because one cannot isolate the actual labour costs as in the case of airframe and aero-engine contracts. It is a great credit to the Comptroller and Auditor General that he should have spotted this.
What clearly emerges in the conduct of this contract is that there is no suggestion at all of any impropriety. It is very important that that should be emphasised, as I am sure the whole House would wish to agree. It stands out clearly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am talking about the Government service; there was no impropriety on the part of the Government service. There has been severe criticism of the Civil Service, but there is no question of impropriety. The fact is that errors of a serious character were made, but they were made in the normal course of work by officials engaged on that work.
What we must inquire into is not how those mistakes came about but why they came about, whether individuals were given responsibilities greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear, or whether the system itself was to some extent to blame. If the system were to blame I should accept, on behalf of the Treasury, that we would have a responsibility together with the Ministry of Aviation, because we have a responsibility for the general conduct of public

business. I should not agree that we should take back the detailed responsibility for individual contracts.
It is interesting that the errors to which attention has been called were errors of lack of practical experience, of lack of drive and of remoteness between the different Departments. These are precisely the sort of criticisms often levelled at large bureaucratic organisations. We know that it is an inherent difficulty of a very large bureaucratic organisation that people tend to be remote and lack a certain amount of thrust and drive, and it is difficulty to recruit people with the practical experience required. This question of recruitment is extraordinarily important because it is difficult in these days when there are so many attractive opportunities in the production industries to get the staff of the quality we desire. Certainly, we shall study closely the need for improving the staff, and, if possible, getting in outside advice in suitable cases.
I turn, finally, to the right hon. Gentleman and his personal attack on my right hon. Friend. He made a personal attack of, I thought, a particularly bitter character on my right hon. Friend. He said last week:
for at least the fifteenth time this year,… Ministry of Aviation business, Ministry of Aviation secret reports, Ministry of Aviation proposals to the Cabinet, whether ultimately accepted by the Cabinet or not, have been privately leaked to a single newspaper for reasons I can only surmise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 695.]
That was a deliberate accusation of dishonourable conduct on the part of my right hon. Friend. The phrase,
for reasons which I can only surmise",
was a smear.
The right hon. Gentleman was willing to wound, but afraid to strike. What is more, he produced not a shred of evidence to support it, either to the House or to my right hon. Friend. We have studied with great care all the reports appearing from this particular journalist in the last year and can find no evidence whatever to support the right hon. Gentleman's most serious accusation against my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Nor did his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley do any better. The hon. Member for Dudley referred—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody, including myself.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member for Dudley referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti). If he intended to accuse him of dishonourable conduct as a Minister, he should have given him notice; if he did not, he should never have made that speech. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speeches, is intelligent

and witty, but—[Interruption.]—he displays a streak of bitterness, meanness and viciousness.—[Interruption.]—which will eventually destroy both him and his party.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 266.

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mitchison, G. R.


Alldritt, W. H.
Hannan, William
Monslow, Walter


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Moody, A. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Barnett, Guy
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Moyle, Arthur


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mulley, Frederick


Bence, Cyril
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Neal, Harold


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Hilton, A. V.
O'Malley, B. K.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Owen, Will


Benson, Sir George
Hooson, H. E.
Padley, W. E.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Blyton, William
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Boardman, H.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pargiter, G. A.


Boston, T. G.
Howie, W.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, James H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Frederick


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pentland, Norman


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Prentice, R. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Randall, Harry


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Redhead, E. C.


Callaghan, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, John


Deer, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lubbock, Eric
Snow, Julian


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
McBride, N.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McCann, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Albert
Mclnnes, James
Stonehouse, John


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stones. William


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fletcher, Eric
McLeavy, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marsh, Richard
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Roy
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Grey, Charles
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. dames (Lianelly)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Milne, Edward
Weitzman, David




Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wyatt, Woodrow


White, Mrs. Eirene
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Whitlock, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)



Wigg, George
Winterbottom, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Short and


Willey, Frederick
Woof, Robert
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farey-Jones, F. W.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Farr, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Allason, James
Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Finlay, Graeme
Maddan, Martin


Anderson, D. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maitland, Sir John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Foster, Sir John
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Marlowe, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marten, Neil


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Barter, John
Gardner, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Go &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Berkeley, Humphry
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L, C.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Black, Sir Cyril
Green, Alan
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Bourne-Arton, A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Box, Donald
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gurden, Harold
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hastings, Stephen
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bryan, Paul
Hay, John
Partridge, E.


Buck, Antony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullard, Denys
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Peel, John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hendry, Forbes
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Gordon
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Carr, Compton (Baron's Court)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn Pitman, Sir James


Cary, Sir Robert
Hocking, Philip N.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Chataway, Christopher
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, Henry (Antrim, North)
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)
Hollingworth, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)



Cleaver, Leonard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Cole, Norman
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Prior, J. M. L.



Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Corfield, F. V.
Jackson, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Coulson, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, Julian


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Roots, William


Curran, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leavey, J. A.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Seymour, Leslie


Donaldson, Cmndr. C. E. M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Sharples, Richard


Doughty, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shepherd, William


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd A Chiswick)


du Cann, Edward
Longbottom, Charles
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Duncan, Sir James
Longden, Gilbert
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Eden, Sir John
Loveys, Walter H.
Stainton, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stevens, Geoffrey


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, J. A.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Storey, Sir Samuel







Studholme, Sir Henry
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Summers, Sir Spencer
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Talbot, John E.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wise, A. R.


lapsed, Peter
Turner, Colin
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Teeling, Sir William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Woollam, John


Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Webster, David



Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Conway)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mr. McLaren.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, while recognising the difficulties involved in estimating costs in relation to novel and complex fields of manufacture, and noting the findings of the first report of Sir John Lang's Inquiry, endorses the action already taken to strengthen the contracts organisation of the Ministry of Aviation and the intention to take such further steps as may be necessary in the light of Sir John Lang's further report and approves the acceptance of the offer of Ferranti Limited to refund a total of £4,250,000.

VESTURES OF MINISTERS MEASURE

7.10 p.m.

Sir John Arbuthnot: I beg to move,
That the Vestures of Ministers Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
Invariably when we discuss Church matters, the standard of debate is high. Though views often differ, no one doubts the sincerity of those whose views differ from his own. I am sure that in this debate the differences of outlook which may be expressed will be recognised as being held with sincerity and that at the conclusion hon. Members will vote according to their consciences, guided solely by what they believe to be best for England and for the Church.
Before coming to what is in the Vestures Measure itself there are two related points with which I should like to deal. The first is that raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). He said on the Holy Table Measure—I have no doubt that he will say it again on this one—that Parliament is being presented with these Measures piecemeal. He suggested that those who are bringing the

Measures forward in small sections, each in itself possibly acceptable, are doing so of malicious design. He went on to allege that when the Measures were put together to make up the whole pattern Parliament would find that it had unwittingly been a party to the undermining of the whole foundation of the Protestant faith and that by that time it would be too late to do anything about it.
This picture which my hon. and gallant Friend presents is, I suggest, quite false. Both Archbishops wrote a letter two years ago to each Member of Parliament setting out the picture of what the Church was trying to achieve in the revision of Canon Law, a picture in which each of these Measures as it comes forward has its rightful place. Were all the questions held up and eventually put before Parliament for adoption or rejection in one Measure, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brentford, in another place, many expedient things might be jeopardised because of one or two items to which objection was taken. Since Parliament, under the enabling Act, cannot amend—we can only accept or reject—it would seem to me that this House is being given fairer treatment and a much better opportunity for detailed decision by these matters being presented to it in small sections. It is better so, rather than that we be faced with acceptance or rejection as a whole of the reforms made necessary by the revision of the Canon Law. This is always provided that the overall picture has been clearly presented, as it has been by the letter from the two Archbishops.
The second introductory point that I would make is that of timing. Why, the argument runs, introduce this Measure at this stage at the fag end of a Parliament when everybody's nerves are apt to be edgy and election fever is in the air; why not leave it until after the election to a new Parliament to consider


at leisure in a calmer atmosphere? I would advance two reasons. First, we do not any of us want this to become an election issue. Judging by the literature to which we have all been subjected, if the issue were not to be decided before the election, candidates might well be snowed under with questionnaires and might take up positions under election pressures which they might afterwards regret.
The second reason is inherent in the very terms of the enabling Act itself. The Church Assembly is charged with the duty of legislating, but Parliament has reserved to itself the right of approving or disapproving that legislation. Therefore, Parliament owes to the Church a duty to deal expeditiously with the Measures which the Church brings before it. Let me remind the House that the Church Assembly has given to these Measures many years of careful debate and consideration. This one has been many years in discussion in the Church Assembly. There is always a large volume of Church legislation in the pipeline waiting to come to Parliament. If considerations such as whether one party or another is in power or whether or not it is the fag end of a Parliament were to turn on and off like a tap, arbitrarily, the orderly way in which Parliament considers Church Measures, the position would become quite intolerable, and this certainly was not the intention of Parliament in framing the legislation.
I turn now to the Measure itself. It has been passed by large majorities in all three Houses of the Church Assembly. The Ecclesiastical Committee, with only two dissentients, neither of whom incidentally was a member of the Church of England, has reported upon it as expedient. The most unfortunate thing about the Measure is its name. Had it been called "The Parochial Church Councils (Extension of Powers) Measure"—that is a major part of what it does—it would have been accepted without demur. But, named as it is, it has aroused suspicion of a departure from Protestantism quite out of keeping with the contents of the Measure.
The Preamble, in which the Church firmly declares that it does not regard vestments as having any particular doctrinal significance, has aroused criticism. This represents no change in the

attitude of the Church and merely states a fact. That this fact should be so clearly stated and should be accepted by the Church ought to be a reassurance to those who fear a connection between vestments and the doctrine of transsubstantiation, which the Church has always rejected and continues to reject.
References were made in another place and elsewhere to the views of some who attach significance to vestments. The Church through its proper organs having said that in the Church's view vestments have no particular doctrinal significance, I should have thought that no individual opinion could possibly have weight against that. The vestments which a clergyman may wear for the various services are determined by the Ornaments Rubric of the Prayer Book and by certain of the Canons of 1603. But the meaning of these and their interpretation is not clear. In 1877 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, after hearing historical arguments, took a view, a view which was disputed at the time, a view which was questioned by the 1906 Royal Commission and a view which is repudiated by modern historians such as Professor Norman Sykes.
There are two ways in which we can clear up this matter, either by seeking to have the judgment of 1877 reversed—and if we try to go about it this way the wearing of vestments will become compulsory for all clergymen, and that is why we do not pursue this course—or by legislation. By going about it in this way, it is possible to permit the variety of choice which is in keeping with the comprehensiveness of the Church of England. This is what the Measure is intended to do. It is in no sense an attempt to encourage doctrines contrary to those of the Church of England.
I want to stress with all the power that I have the loyalty to the Protestant faith of the many hundreds of clergy who welcome this Measure, and to repudiate the suggestion that they are attempting to undermine the fundamental beliefs of the Church. Any such suggestion is, in the words of the Archbishop,
either scandalous or silly and perhaps the latter is the more charitable adjective of the two".

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my hon. Friend going to say anything about the third possible course,


that of accepting the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which would give the clarity which he seeks?

Sir J. Arbuthnot: If we were to accept that suggestion, it would mean that the law would be out of line with current practice and with current feeling.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: So what?

Sir J. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman asks "So what?" If the law is out of line with current practice and current feelings, surely it is bad law, and that is what we are seeking to put right. This Measure lays down what may be worn, with a number of permitted alternatives which conform to current practice.
What to my mind is the most important Clause in the Measure provides for what is, in effect, a built-in veto by parochial church councils against any unwelcome change in the form of vestments used in a church. The Measure provides that any clergyman who wishes to make a change in the vestments used in his church must consult his parochial church council, and in the event of disagreement the matter will be decided by the bishop.
This is not a Measure for change. It is a Measure to bring the law into line with established practice. It is not a mandatory Measure, it is, rather, a permissive one, and in commending it to the House for approval I would just add that one of the great strengths of the Church of England is its tolerance. If given the choice of attending a service where the vestments were simple, or where they were more ornate, I would prefer the simple service every time, but I do not feel that it is up to me, who prefer simplicity, to deny more colourful vestments to those who find them helpful in their worship.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend described this Measure as permissive rather than mandatory, but the last words on page I provide that the bishop "shall give directions thereon." Surely the word "directions" is not permissive, but mandatory?

Sir J. Arbuthnot: This is on the question of disagreement between the parochial church council and the minister.

If there were not to be a reference to the bishop, we would, in effect, be denying the right of appeal. We would be removing any form of appeal when a disagreement arose. It seems to me that any bishop in his senses would be likely to come down on the side of the parochial church council, because if he came down on the side of the parson against the parochial church council to use vestments which the council, presumably representing the rest of the parishioners, disliked, the effect would be to empty the church, and that is the last thing that any bishop would wish to see happen.
There are three specific cases which have been quoted, both in another place and in the Press, of men about to be ordained being compelled to wear a stole. It is now 12 years since the occurrence in one diocese of episodes which caused concern in this matter. The Archbishop dealt with it in his speech in another place and said that he believed that any such compulsion would be inconceivable, especially as there would be a desire to carry out the toleration embodied in the Measure in spirit as well as in the letter.
Yesterday the Archbishop wrote me a letter from which he invited me to quote. He said:
I wish it to be known that early in 1953 "—
that is immediately after these incidents—
the Diocesan Bishops passed a resolution for the private guidance of their own administration to the effect that in no Diocese of the Church of England will an ordinand, who has been offered a title, be denied ordination on the sole ground that he is conscientiously unwilling to wear a stole.
I hope that note will be taken of the fact that the incidents occurred 12 years ago. Steps were then taken to prevent any recurrence. In the light of the Archbishop's speech in another place, and the information given in his letter, I hope that we may be able to regard this question as closed. Incidentally, I would have thought that ordinands were outside the scope of the Measure, which is confined to the vesture of Ministers.
The Church Assembly as a whole believes that if the Measure becomes law it will enable the Church to maintain the spirit of toleration which it has increasingly achieved in recent years, and, by removing a possible cause of friction, will release the energies of the clergy and laity


for their all-important work of evangelisation.

7.28 p.m.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott: Like, I suspect, a good many other hon. Members, I have been deeply exercised in mind trying to decide what it was right to do about this Measure. I wish that I could find it as easy as I know many people have.
It is no good us just saying that this is an unimportant Measure. It may be to some people. It may even be unimportant to the majority, but there is a large number of good sincere God-fearing people to whom it is very far from being that. I think that whether we agree with them or not, we should recognise this as a fact and try as best we can to understand their feelings, and it is here that my doubts about this Measure arose for I dislike intensely the thought of causing these people hurt.
I regret that. I regret, too—and this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) that, whatever reason there may have been, and there must have been one, the 1877 decision of the Privy Council was never challenged. It seems to me that that was a decision, the validity of which has been widely questioned by a number of wise people, which, if it had been reversed, might have avoided a great deal of controversy which can be doing nothing but harm to the strength and unity of the Church.
Those are my doubts, but there is the other side of the story, so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. T say at once, after what I hope the House will believe has been long and anxious thought, that I shall support the Measure. I will briefly tell the House why.
There are the reasons given by my hon. Friend. The Measure is permissive and not mandatory. This is very important. Among the large number of letters that I have had—and I am sure other hon. Members have had them too—and among the very many people with whom I have talked about it, I have found a widespread fear that an incumbent might, in certain circumstances, be forced to adopt practices of which he disapproved and

which caused him offence. I have done my best to assuage these fears and to show that nothing of the sort can happen; that no one can be forced to do anything against his will. But I hope that it will go out clearly and unmistakably from this House tonight that in respect of this particular apprehension about this Measure they can feel reassured.
Then there are the powers of the parochial church councils, to which my hon. Friend also referred. These are completely new, and they are very far reaching. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that they constitute an absolute veto, but they make it virtually impossible for a change to be brought about by an incumbent against the wishes of his parish. It seems to me that those two points in the Measure are very powerful safeguards.
There are two other reasons which have influenced me, both of which have some validity. There is the point of bringing the law and the practice of the Church into line. The desirability of doing this was pointed years ago by the Lloyd-Jacob Committee. It is important for the good name and good repute of the Church, and when we see a reasonable opportunity of doing this we should try to make the law and the practice of the Church conform.
My last reason lies in the proceedings and voting in the Church Assembly itself. Of course, Parliament is not here just to set the seal of approval on every Measure coming up from the Assembly, but we should pay due regard to what goes on there, and to the voting. As my hon. Friend has said, in this case the voting was very convincing, so much so that, although I would not want to make anything of it, it looks to me from the figures as though some people who were opposed to the Measure may have voted for it.
Those are my reasons for supporting the Measure. I had to make my mind up, as did other hon. Members. Having done so, I sincerely believe that my decision is the right one.
In the Church today there is a greater tolerance and wider understanding of the points of view of other people—and I hope, less bigotry—than there was in times past. One of the really great strengths of the Church, as a noble Lord said in


another place, is that in it there is room for all of us. It embraces us all.
So, daringly, I admit, but in honesty and humility, I hope, I ask those who have doubts whether they cannot stretch their tolerance a little further tonight. I know that they can quite easily say to me, "Is it not about time that you showed to us some of that tolerance that you preach, and showed a wider understanding of our point of view for a change? Why should it always be we to whom appeals for tolerance are made?" I acknowledge the force of that charge. I can only say that I, too, have had doubts. I have been very torn in trying to make up my mind about this, and I have tried to understand their point of view.
In some ways this has been one of the most difficult of decisions to have to make. I suppose that in my doubts I could be accused of inconsistency, because I found no difficulty in supporting the Jurisdiction Measure a year ago, or in supporting the Holy Table Measure the other day. But in respect of this one I had real difficulty, largely for the reason that I gave at the outset, that I found to repugnant to do something which bruises the very deep feelings of many people, most of whom, God knows, are probably far better Christians than I am.
Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that this Measure does not contain in it the seeds of the growth and of that danger which people fear. I renew my appeal to them to look into their hearts again and try to see whether they cannot come with us on this matter tonight.
The other day I was reading a story of the great King Henry of Navarre. He was once showing to the Spanish Ambassador to the Court of France the new chapel which had been built at his splendid palace at Fontainebleau. The ambassador thought the chapel a poor thing in a setting of such magnificence, and said, "I find no one here so ill-lodged as God, Sire", and King Henry replied, "We Frenchmen keep God in our hearts, not within four walls." It may be that in this thought there is something for us to ponder, for, surely, the things that really matter are not our surroundings, nor the clothes that we wear. What really matters is the spirit

in which we approach the Throne of Grace.

7.37 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The House will agree that we have listened to two extremely able, moderate and sincere speeches from my hon. Friends who have supported the introduction of this Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) started with two preliminary remarks. He suggested that I was about to show—as I did in respect of the Holy Table Measure—that this was one of a number of Measures which were a method of introducing, in a piecemeal way, a whole variety of things which amounted to something quite fundamental. I had not intended to do that, but perhaps I may come back to the point later, at my hon. Friend's invitation.
Perhaps he was a little unfair in putting into my mouth the words that something was being done with malicious design. I do not think that I used that phrase. I do not attribute malice to anyone. I hope that in my opposition to the Measure I shall answer the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), whom I deeply respect, that in anything that we might say in this debate we shall remember that we are discussing the Christian Church, and shall try to say it, to the utmost of our ability, in charity and tolerance.
I want to say one word on my hon. Friend's preliminary point. He defended the timing of the debate. In spite of his argument, I adhere to the view that the last Order on the last day of a Parliament before the Adjournment is not the best time to discuss a Measure of this sort. We are open to the charge that we are not treating the Church of England with the respect that it deserves in so bringing this Measure at this time.
However, I understand that my hon. Friend himself has done his best to keep his word to us that he would see that there was adequate time for a debate. I appreciate that, and I appreciate all the difficulties, but I still think it a pity that this Measure should have to be discussed at this time and in this way.
May I make two preliminary points before I come to the actual substance of the Measure. The first is to answer two questions which have been put to me


privately in many conversations. By what right does one who is not a member of the Church of England, or who might be a member of one of the free Churches, or a member of no Church, or a man who is an atheist or an agnostic enter into a debate of this sort? What right has a Member of Parliament in that position to pronounce upon Measures of this sort?
I think that the people who asked that question misunderstand the nature of Parliament. A man is elected to this House, and when he is so elected he owes his duty to his constituents, to their opinions and to their affairs. But when he comes here, he becomes a Member of Parliament responsible to the nation as a whole, and it is his right, and indeed, his duty, to concern himself with matters affecting the whole nation.
This is why there is no incongruity in a Scottish Member voting about the flooding of a Welsh valley in order to provide water for an English town. This is why there is no incongruity in a Welsh Member producing an argument about unemployment in Northern Ireland. This is why no one objected when English Members voted for the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. I hope that it will be universally recognised in the House that every Member, whatever his constituency and personal and private beliefs, has, in this House of Commons, an absolute right to discuss anything that is properly brought before the House.
The other question that is asked is why should Parliament have any say at all in a Measure from the Church of England? One often hears the argument, why should not the Church be left to run its own affairs? This would be a valid argument if the Church of England were a free Church or a disestablished Church. Such Christian communities have an absolute right to order their own affairs as they wish, but the Church of England, since the days of the Saxon kings, has been the established Church of the land and, consequently, there is an intimate relationship, and always has been, between the Church of England and Parliament.
Being the established Church, the Church of England enjoys naturally great privileges. The Church of England has conferred upon the nation great benefits. The Church of England has

been of enormous value to this nation in its long history; but the nation has conferred great privileges upon the Church of England. It has conferred upon it the privilege that its bishops sit in Parliament. They have the right of voting and legislating on all matters which come before another place. They have great privileges in the nation. They enjoy the great revenues which have been conferred by the nation on the Church of England for over 1,000 years of its history. They enjoy the use of the great cathedrals and the parish churches. One of my hon. Friends behind me was asking whether I was going to suggest that one should take that away. Under no circumstances—I am a believer in the Establishment of the Church of England and would wish to defend that Establishment. I think it right so to do.

Sir Peter Agnew: I want to comment on what my hon. Friend said about the nation. He gave the impression that the nation had conferred great wealth upon the Church of England, but of course that is not so. The endowments of the Church of England are the accumulated results of the gifts of pious men throughout the centuries, who have given freely of their substance, their land and otherwise, and now these are looked after by the Church Commissioners.

Captain Orr: I should be getting far from this Measure if I were to debate with my hon. Friend the question of the revenues of the Church of England. I would simply remind him that there have been in the past such things as tithes.
By virtue of the Establishment, this House of Commons has always been presumed to be—and, I think, legally is—the voice of the laity of the Church of England. I was sent last week a copy of the most interesting sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Shirley, the senior canon residentiary of Canterbury, at a Commemoration of Magna Carta in Canterbury Cathedral in the presence of the Archbishop. There was a passage in that sermon which struck me greatly, because it puts better than I could put the point that I am trying to make. In the course of his sermon, he said:
For 400 years the Church's lay representation has been the House of Commons, as it legally is today. Forty years ago a House


of Laity (of some 350 members) was included in the Church Assembly. Is it now widely admitted that these lay folk (some with relations in the other two Houses) truly represent the two to three million Anglican communicants, still more many millions of other members? Loyal and eager Church people, they come from the leisured and cultured classes, unknown to the vast body of the so-called electorate, but possessing legislative powers over which the Church at large has no final supervisory control: Unlike the Scottish Kirk, whose Barrier Act carries the General Assembly's proposals into the local presbyteries where the voice of the common people is to be heard, true to ancient principle that what touches all should be approved by all.
But the new machinery of the English Church does not look thus democratic, but rather oligarchic; for, further, the Assembly's power is not balanced by a corresponding responsibility, because—unlike Parliament—it is neither answerable to its vague (and often unconscious) electorate, nor removable by adverse voting, nor is the general body of the Church informed beforehand of the legislative programmes to be proposed. But the laity is the Church in very real sense, even as it was in primitive days; and representations should go deep and reach wide, to include God's people among the less leisured and the less learned ".
I believe that to be a wise and proper statement, and it puts it, as I have said, better than I could put the matter myself.
This Measure comes from the Church Assembly. My hon. Friend who intro-duced the Measure and the Report of the Committee thereupon produced the voting figures in the Church Assembly. I hope that it will not be said that if there should be a disagreement between this House and the Church Assembly, it is necessarily therefore a disagreement between Church and State. I think it would be more proper to refer to it as a disagreement between the House of Commons, as representing the laity, and the Church Assembly.
I do not want to labour the point but in the House of Clergy there are 350 members, of whom 132 are ex officio members. There are representatives from each diocese. From each diocese but on; there are three ex officio members, of whom two are archdeacons appointed by the: bishops, and they, certainly on this Measure—I think, naturally—have always voted with the bishops who appointed them. I make that point simply to show that it is not necessarily true to say that the House of Clergy represents even a majority view of the clergy of the Church of England. It might, but it is not necessarily so—

Mr. Denys Bullard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am listening to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) with great interest, and with much of his argument I am in broad sympathy, but shall we ever get to the Vestures of Ministers Measure if we are to discuss the constitution of the Church Assembly? Ought we not to confine ourselves more to this Measure? Otherwise, we shall be here during August.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I was listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), and I think that he is going a little wide. I do not think that it is right now to debate the constitution of the Church Assembly. He can bring it in, just by reference, as an argument for his case, but I do not think that we can debate the constitution of the Assembly on this Measure.

Captain Orr: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have made the point I wanted to make, which is that one must not assume that the Church Assembly itself, by its constitution, necessarily is the Church of England. I take the view that Dr. Shirley took, which is that the laity primarily are the Church.
We have a duty in the House of Commons to try to discern, if we can, what may be the view of the laity of the Church of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover said that he did not wish the matter to become an election issue. I think that he was mistaken there, because I should have thought that members of the Church of England or of any other Church in the land, have a perfect right to cross-examine candidates at the time of an election to ascertain their views upon this matter. How else are the candidates to make their views known, and what would be wrong in the matter becoming an election issue so long as it did not become a party political issue? I do not see any particular objection to that.
I therefore believe that this House of Commons has a duty to examine this Measure very carefully and, coming now to the subject of vestments, I think it a sad reflection upon the state of the


Church that, at a time when the whole Christian Church throughout the world is facing probably one of the most difficult times in all its history since the Roman persecutions, when it is facing a rising tide of materialism, and facing problems of indifference and of general collapse in moral standards, the Church of England should be concerning itself so much with matters of how its clergy should be dressed and questions of Canon Law.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington that the things of the spirit are more important. The Dean of St. Paul's, referring to the Church's preoccupation with the revision of Canon Law, described it as that of the householder who was rearranging his furniture when his house was on fire. It is a pity that we should have to discuss the vestures of ministers at this time.
Is the matter important at all? My hon. Friend answered that question when he said that the matter is important if only because so many decent, honest people think that it is important. Does the clothing of the clergy carry any doctrinal significance? Whether or not it does, many thousands of decent people think that it does, and I should have thought that to be one of the tests. If I were to go at too great length into the history of vestments I might again incur the wrath of my hon. Friend, but the Measure is concerned with vestments and perhaps I ought to say a brief word about it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Brief."]
If hon. Members wish to get a good and authoritative history of vestments, the best I have found is in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", in the Library. I commend it to hon. Members who want to study the history of vestments, as no doubt many will after this debate is over—

Mr. Hugh Delargy: There are some hon. Members who have no need to study it.

Captain Orr: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend here. He dogs my footsteps in these matters, and if we get things wrong we can always call upon him for the authoritative and authentic voice.
The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" points out in its article—and from the many researches I have made, I think that this is right—that during the first century of its existence the officers of the Primitive Church were content to officiate in the dress of civil life. Many of the vestments we are about to discuss were the ordinary civil garments of the Graeco-Roman civilisation that existed during the first few centuries of Christianity—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They were Communists.

Captain Orr: I am not at all sure that that would be in order to pursue that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The point I was making was that, as far as one can gather, any references to the dress worn by ministers of the Church during the first few centuries were merely to require that it should be clean and decent, and of good quality, and nothing further.
It is not until somewhere between the fourth and the sixth centuries, when the Roman Empire itself was in decline, that there began to be seen a difference in the dress of the clergy and the laiety. Then, during the Middle Ages, as civil dress changed so many of the old-type garments were kept on, and were worn by the clergy. In the later centuries they became more ornate, more gorgeous, and more varied, and there were many more of them coming from different sources.
Until shortly prior to the Reformation we find that in the Church of England there were very great numbers of vestments, all very good and gorgeous, and they were associated in the minds of men, and certainly in the minds of the reformers, with many of the abuses of the Church which the reformers sought to do away with. Some of them were particularly associated with the doctrine of the Mass. The Holy Communion—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Before my hon. and gallant Friend gets on to that, does he recollect the first sentence of the thirty-fourth of the Thirty-Nine Articles which says:
It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like.
My point is that traditions were not the same everywhere.

Captain Orr: I recollect that very well, but I do not see the relevance to the point which I was about to make.

Mr. G. Wilson: The point which my hon. and gallant Friend has made was that certain garments had certain significance, but I was pointing out that they were different in different places where different conditions were present.

Captain Orr: What I said was that at the time of the Reformation the reformers definitely associated certain garments with abuses then in the Church and certain particular garments with the doctrine of the Mass. I did not think that anyone would deny that.
The Holy Communion service is the central and most solemn service in the Church about which all Christians feel deeply. Christians sincerely differ in their interpretation of the nature of the Holy Communion service. It is the deepest of all divisions between Christians. United as they are on many things, on the fundamentals of the faith, the nature of the Holy Communion service is the one thing which deeply divides Christian people.
Some hold that the Holy Communion service is a sacrifice, that the bread and wine when consecrated by the priest do in very fact, in a mystical way, become the body and the blood of Christ and are to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) would agree that I have stated the views of his Church. Those who hold that the Holy Communion service is a ceremony of celebration commanded by Our Lord in commemoration of His death, believe that those who gather round the holy table commune with Christ and each other. This is a deep and fundamental division.
At the time of the Reformation certain garments were definitely associated with one view and the reformers, in the event, did away with them. After the Elizabethan Settlement, and for about a hundred years, the controversy within the Church of England was not whether or not all these Mass vestments should be brought back but whether or not the surplice and the square cap should be retained. Eventually it was the Calvinists and the Puritans who held the view that even the surplice and the square cap should be done away with.
After the secession of the Church in 1662 the controversy ceased and as far as I can discover nothing was heard of the vestments controversy in the Church until about a hundred years ago with the rise of the Oxford Movement. That was a doctrinal movement and it sought to bring back what it defined as ancient Catholic doctrine. Those who adhered to the Movement were deeply sincere and able men, but it is surely no coincidence that at the same time there began to come back a demand for the vestments associated with those doctrines.
The controversy has gone on and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as has been said, has pronounced upon the matter. There was a deep division between Christian people and between lawyers. To try to understand the tangle of argument that surrounds the Ornaments Rubric requires one to be, as someone has said, not only a lawyer and a historian but also a detective to discover what was the law.
When I read the article in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" to which I have referred I was very much struck by sentences at the end of the article which seemed to sum up my view of the matter. The article is an entirely fair and balanced one taking neither side in the controversy and it ends:
To attempt to enforce the law (whatever the law may be) would seriously wound the consciences of a large number of people who are quite unconscious of having broken it.
The author of the article was referring to people who over the last hundred years have become accustomed to services in which vestments were worn, and he continued:
Formally to legalise the minimum enjoined by the Rubrics of 1549 would on the other hand offend the Protestant section of the Church without reconciling those who would be content with nothing short of the Catholic maximum.
I believe that to be wise, and I believe that it would have been much wiser to have left well alone and not to have introduced this Measure. I believe that the Church Assembly in bringing forward this matter has been concerning itself to some extent with trivialities, but I think that these are dangerous in that they cause a division and crystallise and pinpoint divisions between people.
I do not want to weary the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have


spoken for a very long time. I am sorry but it is an important subject and I am doing my best to outline the case against it.
Last Thursday I asked the Prime Minister whether or not he would appoint a Royal Commission on the subject of the Church of England. One of the things which I had in mind was that we ought to examine again the enabling Act under which this Measure is brought forward. It seems to me a great pity that we are faced with the problem of either rejecting the Measure or approving it and that there is not some form of give and take between this House and the Church Assembly and that we should not have the possibility, for instance, of amending the Measure, sending it back and having it brought back here. I believe that a great deal of difficulty would be avoided in that way. I believe that this Measure, unfortunate though I think it is, is capable of amendment, but of course we cannot amend it.
One of the things put to me by Evangelical churchmen is that there are certain safeguards lacking in this Measure. The first to which reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and I shall not labour the point, is the question of ordinands and the stole. They would have liked something in this Measure or in a related Measure which would have given absolute protection in the matter. We welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover quoted from the letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, but bishops and archbishops come and go and the people who feel in this way would like something in the legislation.
The important safeguard which is wanted concerns the laity and this was touched upon by my hon. Friend on the question of the parochial church council. It is thought that this Measure gives an absolute protection to a parish that something will not be introduced and that a clergyman will not start wearing clothing which upsets the people of the parish without the consent of the parish, but that is not what the Measure says. If a clergyman comes to a parish and wishes to adopt a form of dress which the parish dislikes he has a duty under the Measure to consult the parochial

church council. The parochial church council may disagree with him. If it does, the matter goes to the bishop who has the final decision. From all the indications, there are many lay people who feel that they would not necessarily have confidence in the bishops to decide on their side.

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: Would my hon. and gallant Friend not agree that all that the bishop has the power to do and all that he is called upon to do is to discover what is acceptable to the council? He has no other discretion. The only thing on which there can be disagreement is what is acceptable to the council. What is found to be acceptable to the council is absolute.

Captain Orr: I honestly do not read the Measure in that way. The final decision on this question would rest with the bishop as to whether or not the vestments would be worn. I am not a lawyer, but I read it in that way and the best advice that I can get is that this would be the effect.
What my lay friends say is this: "If this is so, it may be argued that no wise bishop in his senses would decide against the wishes of the parochial church council." But there are some bishops—perhaps there are none now, but it has been known in history and it possibly will be known in the future—who are not wise. There are some bishops who would not necessarily make a wise decision. They say that if it is generally accepted that no sensible bishop would decide against his parochial church council, why not write it into the Measure? In fact, why not make it an absolute veto?

Mr. John M. Temple: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would not want to mislead the House. Under the present Church law as it stands, is it not the position that the parochial church council has no locus standi whatsoever, and that if this Measure were passed the parochial church council would have a say in the matter?

Captain Orr: Yes, I fully concede that. It gives more of a say to the parochial church council than it would have before. What I am saying is that it does not go so far as many of the supporters of the Measure suggest that it goes. It does


not give the parochial church council a veto in the matter of vestments. I believe it ought to. I do not see why it should not.
I suppose we shall have to divide upon this Measure, aye or no. I think it is a pity because our vote is bound to be interpreted in different ways. If the House of Commons rejects the Measure, this is bound to be interpreted as Parliament against the Church. If, on the other hand, the House of Commons approves the Measure, this is bound to be interpreted by what someone called the great mass of inarticulate laity of the Church as their last protection gone. Either way, it is unfortunate.
I am going to make a suggestion to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. Is it not possible, even at this late moment, to take the Measure back to the Church Assembly and ask whether or not there could be written into it the safeguards that I have mentioned? I would give him this assurance, that if that were so, if there were written into it the safeguards that I have suggested, certainly, I for one, if I happened to be fortunate and honoured to be in the next Parliament, would take a different attitude to the Measure. I would never wholeheartedly support it, but I might take a different attitude and it might be possible to have unity, at any rate, within the House of Commons upon it.
If my hon. Friend does not feel able to do that—and I know that it is late to make the suggestion—I feel that I, for one, would have no option whatever but to oppose this Measure. I do not know how many others would be with me, but [do not think there is any other course open to me. Like Martin Luther, I can do no other.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: The hon. Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) will no doubt, if he sees fit, reply to the closing démarche of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). If I were to attempt to answer every point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made as well as deliver the speech that I have prepared, I should take twice as long as he has taken, and I am not anxious to take up too much of the time of the House, because I feel sure that all of us, whatever our view of this matter, feel that

this debate should not continue all night, or into the small hours, but should come to a conclusion at a reasonable time when those who wish to vote can do so without great inconvenience.
The hon. and gallant Member made one or two points, however, on which I must comment. I do not share his view that what he calls "the great mass of the inarticulate laity" are seriously troubled about this matter. I believe that most of the representations and the pressure that hon. Members have received have come from what is really a very small, though perfectly sincere, number of people on one extreme wing of the Church of England.

Captain Orr: Would the hon. Gentleman at least take into consideration the fact that probably the great mass of inarticulate laity have not been consulted?

Mr. Driberg: That may be, but in that case the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not consulted them either. Neither he nor I have consulted them. We only give our own impressions, and I do not share his view.
I am always willing to give way to interruptions, but I rather hope that I shall not have to give way to too many, otherwise my speech will be prolonged intolerably. Very briefly, I feel the greatest possible diffidence and reluctance in—I will not say bandying words, but in discussing, in this place, with the hon. and gallant Member such matters as those which he raised about the nature of the Holy Communion. I would only say that when he put two contrasting definitions of that central act of worship, the first one—which, he seemed to imply, was that of the Roman Catholic Church—was very much nearer than the other one to the official definition in the Book of Common Prayer. I would refer him particularly to the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer, where the most exact definition which we have in the Church of England is given.
Another point that he made he has made before, in other debates, in a slightly different form: that is, that the Church Assembly is not really representative of the laity of the Church of England. Indeed, he went so far as to say that the laity is the Church of England. I think that the laos, the holy


people of God, is the whole Church-but it is a bit hard on the bishops and clergy to exclude them altogether from membership of the Church, which is almost what the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be doing.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, by contrast with the Church Assembly, the Church's lay representation is the House of Commons. Now, imperfectly representative as the Church Assembly may be, I think that that view, at this time in history, is completely unrealistic and anachronistic. At least, the members of the Church Assembly, even if some of them have not been elected and even if some of them are not responsible to constituents, are, so far as one knows, all practising Anglicans. We know perfectly well—there is nothing to be ashamed of in it—that that is not true now of the Members of this House. There may have been some sense and some logic in regarding the House of Commons as the lay voice of the Church of England when all its Members were practising, or at least nominal, Anglican church-people. This is totally unrealistic nowadays. One would not, I think, expect the percentage of practising Anglicans in this House to be very much larger than the percentage in the nation at large, and we all know how small, unfortunately, that is.
We have among us many people of other faiths or of none. There are about 25 Roman Catholic Members on both sides of the House. There are a number of Free Churchmen, who make their distinctive contribution on these matters, and very welcome it is. There are some agnostics, humanists, and others who do not belong to any Church. It is utterly absurd to say that the House of Commons, in 1964, is the lay voice or the lay representation of the Church of England. It is just not so.
Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that, as things are, and establishment being what it is, every Member, whatever his own views may be, has a perfect constitutional right to speak and vote on these Measures. I cannot help feeling that it is regrettable that this should be so nowadays. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it is a pity that the Church is, as it were, wasting its time on trivialities of this kind when there are so many much more important

things to be done. I feel very much the same about Parliament. I rather sympathise with the letter in this morning's Daily Telegraph, the writer of which, a clergyman, says that at a moment when the world may be in danger of destruction, and when half the world's peoples are hungry, it is fantastic that the House of Commons should have to spend some hours discussing what sort of clothes clergymen ought to wear in church. This is one of the penalties of establishment. I do not myself regard total disestablishment as what is called practical politics in the foreseeable future, but, if we could approach something nearer what is called the Scottish solution, this would, I believe, lead to a very much happier situation for both Church and State.
My name is among the list of those sponsoring this Measure and I do therefore, of course, support it, but I am bound to say that I originally supported it with some reluctance, not only for the reason I have just given, which I feel very strongly, but also because I have increasingly felt in recent months that it is unfortunate that the able and learned lawyers who advise the Church Assembly should insist on pushing through to us so many of these detailed revisions of Canon Law on a number of matters which, in our pragmatical English way, we have allowed, as it were, to run.
Everyone knew what the situation was about vestments. Occasionally there was slight trouble in this or that parish, but, on the whole, illogical as it may have been, despite the obvious clash between the Privy Council decision and the Ornaments Rubric, things seemed to work fairly well. As I say, I think it rather a pity that these revisions have to come before us. It seems to me to be a kind of legalism, rather than respect for law, to insist that every jot and tittle must be in order and must be observed.
There are still on our Statute Book a number of laws which have fallen into disuse. Nobody says that it is a terrible strain on our consciences, or that we are notorious law-breakers, because we do not observe all the days of fasting prescribed in the Act of 1551 called An Acte for the keping of Hollie daies and Fastinge dayes." I do not believe that every hon. and right hon. Member


observes all those days of fasting. I tear that I do not. That law has simply fallen into disuse because it is out of keeping with current practice and current feeling. This, I submit, could have been the case with this much disputed Privy Council decision of nearly a century ago.
This morning, I was showing a foreign visitor round St. Paul's Cathedral, and we happened to pause by the recumbent marble effigy of a great Victorian divine, Dean Milman, who was a notable historian, scholar, and theologian. We were just about to pass on when I noticed—I hope that this will not shock the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South too much—that the sculptor had portrayed Dean Millman—quite unmistakably, in the durable marble—wearing that illegal stole. The stole is the reductio ad absurdum of this argument about vestments, since it is worn, as we know, by more than 90 per cent. of the clergymen of the Church of England, although it is, if the Privy Council judgment is correct, technically just as illegal as the chasuble and the other vestments.
Incidentally, there was one small point on which, I thought, the hon. Member for Dover was not quite right. He said that archbishops and bishops were completely outside the ambit of this Measure. I do not think that they are. It refers to ministers and celebrants, and archbishops and bishops quite frequently visit parish churches and function—

Sir J. Arbuthnot: I said that ordinands were outside the ambit.

Mr. Driberg: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I misheard him.
The hon. Member for Dover dealt with the piecemeal argument, but I wish to make one point to reinforce what he said.
When the 1927 and 1928 revisions of the Book of Common Prayer came to Parliament, those who supported them were told, "If you had brought this to us not all as one book which we had to accept or reject, we would have agreed to quite a lot of it, because there was only one controversial part of it, the revised Communion service. We would probably have accepted the rest ". When the Church has taken that advice and is bringing it forward bit by bit, so that Parliament can approve or reject each

part of the revised Canon Law, it seems a bit hard to be told that the Church should not have done it piecemeal, but should have done it all in one pattern.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Being an old man, and remembering the debates on the 1928 Prayer Book, the main difficulty, as far as I remember, was that one section of the Church was asked whether, if Parliament sanctioned this Book, it would observe it in full, and it said, "No". That was why Parliament threw it out.

Mr. Driberg: I do not quite follow that intervention, with respect. Although I was not here, I remember those debates quite clearly. Perhaps not inside but certainly outside Parliament one of the complaints was that it should have been brought forward in chapters, as it were—in pieces, so that Parliament could accept or reject each piece. However, I have made the point. I may be wrong, but it seems to me a valid point.
One point which has not been noted in this debate, nor, so far as I remember, in the debate in the other place—where one noble Lord perpetrated what seemed to me to be the over-statement of the century, when he said that this Measure was the greatest act of appeasement since Munich—is that this Measure cuts both ways. All the argument so far has been about these detestable "customary vestments". But one can also imagine the case of a clergyman who has always been used conscientiously to wearing a surplice going to a new parish, being appointed its vicar, and coming up against a parochial church council which wanted him to wear the vestments. He would be in some difficulty about that.
It seems to me and to others who have been used to these things—which, I agree, are not of fundamental importance—that this Measure, for the first time, is legalising the wearing of the surplice at Holy Communion: we have been brought up to regard the Ornaments Rubric, as interpreted by many learned ecclesiologists and historians, as having greater weight—certainly greater moral weight—than a single, much disputed judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which, after all, in those years when it was involved in all those ritual disputes, did from time to time contradict its own judgments and decisions. It did not do so on this matter, but it did on others.
One argument which has not been advanced at length tonight—and I rather hope that it will not be—is contained in a great deal of the propaganda literature that has reached us from various bodies who are, of course, perfectly entitled to send us these postcards and printed letters. I refer to the allegation that this Measure represents part of a general drift to Rome. I know that this is felt sincerely by some hon. Members, too. I do not believe it to be the case, and I will give three or four reasons, very briefly, why I do not believe it to be the case.
In the first place, these vestments, or others very similar to them, are worn in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which were among the first churches to be in schism with the Roman See—a schism which has been long-lasting and profound. Secondly—and perhaps this is even more to the point—almost identical vestments, certainly the chasuble, are worn throughout the Lutheran churches, and nobody will say that those churches are dominated by Rome. The hon. and gallant Member said that "the reformers" decided to abolish these vestments. They did not all decide to abolish them; as I say, they are worn throughout the Lutheran churches. A lesser point, perhaps, is that they are worn in the Old Catholic Church, with which the Church of England is in full communion.
However, the most important of these arguments on whether this is or is not a symptom of a Romeward drift is this. It is stated in the Preamble to the Measure that no vesture is
to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those now contained in the formularies of the Church of England.
That is to say, there is no doctrinal significance in the customary vestments. I think that this is true. They may be significant in other ways. Some people attach a kind of mystical significance to them. Some find a certain aesthetic value in them; that is not an argument on which I would lay great stress. Other people, again—and this is much more important; it brings me to what I regard as the most important point in this part of my argument—find great historical significance in them.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South traced some of the history of these vestments. He was quite right

in saying that originally no distinctive vestures of any kind were worn by the ministers of the Sacrament. These vestments are an extreme example of a certain conservatism—with a small "c"—within the Church. They proclaim the continuity of the modern Church with the Church of the earliest times, because these were, in effect—slightly adapted through the centuries—the clothes worn by the ordinary Roman citizen, probably his Sunday-best clothes. Logically, in my view, a celebrant could wear either these vestments or quite ordinary clothes: I do not see why a minister should not wear his ordinary best suit. But I cannot see any logic in the in-between, middle-of-the-road course of wearing a surplice and scarf.
But the main point is this: since these vestments remind us of the continuity of our Church with the primitive Christian Church they are in effect, if I may say so with all respect to my Roman Catholic friends and colleagues, part of our answer to the Roman Catholic claim to the exclusive possession of the Apostolic succession. As such, the permissive use of these vestments seems to me to be, if anything, an anti-Roman rather than a Rome-ward move.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Would the hon. Member go as far as to agree that basically these clothes might well have been worn by the ordinary citizen in Palestine 2,000 years ago? If so, one might say that they are traditionally, possibly, the descendants of those worn by Christ.

Mr. Driberg: If that is historically true, it is a valid point. I do not know whether it is so. I think they are, roughly, the same as clothes worn by the citizens of Rome in early centuries. If they were worn also in Palestine, the point made by the hon. Member is a good one.
I should like to conclude by reading two brief letters which I have received within the last few days from two clergymen in my constituency. I will not give their names, because I have not obtained permission to do so, but I will willingly show these letters to any hon. Member who would like to see them. They are both clergymen of the Church of England. One writes:
May I say that I hope this Measure is passed so that the decision of the Church


Assembly can be implemented. I am not one who wears vestments himself except when celebrating at a church where they are habitually worn. I prefer not to wear them. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly indeed that the freedom of the Church in this matter should be insured. In my opinion it would be a ghastly setback if this measure were defeated by the Commons…
The other clergyman says:
I am an Evangelical and do not wear vestments myself, but I am strongly in favour of the Measure as a realistic legalisation of current Church practice, and as a vital attempt to promote toleration within our Church.
These two unsolicited letters are expressions of what I believe to be the view of the great mass of Evangelical clergy and churchpeople of the Church of England. I said at the beginning of this speech that I thought that all the pressure which we have been subjected to. perfectly legitimately, had come from a very small extremist group. The majority of Evangelical clergy and laity take the view which these two clergymen take I have heard it stated and not contradicted that the compromise formula which is embodied in the Measure and in its Preamble was devised by, among others, the late Bishop of Rochester, Dr. Chavasse, who was as staunch an Evangelical as any there have ever been.
If this Measure is rejected, I do not think that its rejection will have the slightest effect on current practice. I do not think that anybody nowadays suggests sending some thousands of clergymen to prison, as some clergymen were sent to prison only a century ago, or less, for this sort of thing. Fantastic! On the other hand, if this Measure is approved, there will, equally, not be the slightest change in current practice—with one exception, that there is this slight democratisation involved in the consultation with the parochial church council. That may not go so far as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, would wish, but I am not sure that it would be altogether fair to the clergyman concerned to give an absolute veto to the parochial church council. I should have thought that there ought to be a reasonable balance between the parties if there is, unfortunately, a dispute, which, I think, would occur very rarely.
So on the whole, though originally I regretted, and still do in some ways, that

it is necessary for the House to spend time on such a matter as this, I hope that the Measure will be carried.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, the history of the vestures of ministers and the law relating to them in the Church of England is an immensely complex and tangled subject, and anyone who tries to address his mind to it may soon exclaim, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life". It is, indeed, the spirit which underlies the legislation proposed to the House this evening which should be the basis, it seems to me, of the decision that we have to take one way or the other.
In forming an estimate of what that spirit is, I think that it is not without use to recall the only two previous occasions since the final break with Rome when Parliament has made law in relation to the vestures of ministers. The first such occasion was when Parliament had before it the Bill which became the Act of Uniformity of 1558. Parliament was deliberating at a time when the fires of Smithfield were barely out. It had before it two Protestant prayer books, the first Prayer Book of Edward VI and the second Prayer Book. Parliament decided to adopt the second Prayer Book, but it deliberately and expressly made an exception to that in the matter of the ornaments of the Church and its ministers.
It did this deliberately, and there cannot be any doubt that it did it with the alternatives clearly before it: the prescription in the second Prayer Book of Edward VI was that at all times of their ministration the clergy should wear the surplice only, whereas the prescription in the first Prayer Book, which prescription Parliament deliberately adopted, was that in the Holy Communion the dress should be—this was enjoined—the alb and the chasuble. Such was the deliberate decision of Parliament, legislating immediately after the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, though it left the way open for alteration subsequently.
The second occasion on which Parliament itself made law in this matter was at the Restoration Settlement, when passing


the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Whatever might have been the effect of the Advertisements of 1566, whether they did, in fact, or did not comply with the conditions in the 1558 Act; whatever might be the status of the Canon of 1603, the fact is that Parliament in 1662, when it wrote into the law what is today our Book of Common Prayer, deliberately—for other changes were made in the earlier Prayer Book—decided to retain the Elizabethan rubric which, in effect, enjoined at Holy Communion the alb with the chasuble.
For over two centuries after that time anyone might conscientiously and reasonably believe that he was within the law in wearing those vestments. I put it no more strongly than that. Only in the 1870s did the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council assert that the only lawful vesture of ministers at any time of their ministration was the surplice. From that time onwards the practice of the Church of England in the overwhelmingly vast majority of parishes has been in conflict with the law as declared by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Church of England comes to us in the House this evening and asks us to remove this absurdity and stumbling block.
Those before us in this place who made the Reformation Settlement and the Restoration Settlement wrought even more wisely than they knew. Within the framework of those settlements, the Church of England has been, or has become, a church unique in its comprehensiveness and its tolerance, a church within which all sorts and conditions of men can find, and do find, their spiritual home. We look back today with astonishment and almost incredulity upon the fierce divisions and controversies which marked the nineteenth century—it is not without importance to remember that the decisions of the Privy Council were given at the very height of what is known as the ritualist controversy—but we cannot fail to recognise that the strands of tradition which it has been possible to accommodate together within the Church of England have today left it immensely stronger and immensely enriched.
It is entirely in accordance with that spirit of tolerance and comprehension that the Measure before us is framed. It does not seek to impose any one tradition upon all, neither the surplice only of the

second Prayer Book of Edward VI nor the alb with chasuble of the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. What it does is to recognise the facts of the existing position in the Church of England, its living practice in the 1960s, and to clothe them in the most tolerant way with the forms of law. That is what the Measure before us does.
If I believed that this Measure in any way represented a breach of the Reformation settlement upon which the Church of England is founded, I would have no hesitation in voting against it. As it is, I believe that the Measure is profoundly in accord with the spirit of that settlement. It would be the greatest of tragedies if, when the Church of England asked this House that its law may be brought into accord with its practice, we were to refuse. I trust that we shall not.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This is a difficult and delicate matter which we have been discussing this evening and I think that it says something for the way in which the House has approached it that, so far, no violent language has been used on either side.
It is well known that I am a Nonconformist. My constituents knew it when they elected me and in the years that I have represented the parliamentary Borough of South Shields I do not think that they have ever been in any doubt about it. I have received a good deal of correspondence from my constituents and it is very one-sided. I have received only two printed postcards opposing this Measure. All the rest of my correspondence has been from its supporters, urging me to support the Measure on the grounds, first, that it gives more freedom to the Church of England, secondly, that it is desired by the representative body of the Church of England, and, thirdly, that it will promote a greater tolerance inside the practice of the Church of England.
Those are three arguments that appeal to me very strongly, and I have assured the correspondents who wrote to me on those lines that I accept the weight of opinion in my constituency and that I should support this Measure tonight I propose to do that because I think that the parochial church councils and the general administrative body of the Church of England, through the Church Assembly, have provided the laity of the


Church with opportunities for making their views known. I think that it would be very wrong of us if, having obtained from the Church Assembly overwhelming support for this Measure, as it has, in fact, received, we ignored it and did not make the recommendation to Her Majesty which is the object of this debate.
I regret that the affairs of one Church have to be discussed from time to time in Parliament and I express my sympathy with devout members of that Church who find, when such matters come up in this House, that persons who are not in communion with them and, indeed, do not even agree that their Church should be the Established Church of the country, have to vote in the Division Lobbies on the way in which it is to be administered.
I do not think that it is necessary to say any more than that. I respect the views of those of my constituents who have written to me and the reasons they give for desiring that this Motion should be passed, and I sincerely hope that that will be the result of this debate.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I add my voice to those who have deplored the fact that we in this House, in 1964, are asked to decide upon events and affairs which are more properly within the governance of the Church itself. It is certainly not that I regard what we are discussing as trivial but nevertheless I am most concerned that we should be called upon to make this decision one way or the other.
On the other hand, while the law of the land requires Parliament to decide upon these things, I hold it sacred that every hon. Member has a right to voice his opinion and I am also emboldened by the fact that members of the Church of England, knowing of this Measure, have expressed satisfaction that the final decision has to be made by Parliament. I have heard it expressed that, in retrospect, members of the Church of England are pleased that Parliament, in its wisdom or otherwise, in 1928 did not fully approve the Prayer Book submitted to it.
I approach this matter with great concern from the point of view that it is fundamental to our beliefs that worshippers must be allowed freedom to fellow that form of worship most helpful

to them. That is surely an integral part of the faith by which we live. It is a principle which, in the past, many great men sacrificed their lives and careers to defend and maintain. Today, we too are asked to make the same kind of decision again, although it will cause us in mind nothing like the distress which it caused our forebears in body to reach the decision for which they sacrificed themselves.
I make no apology for speaking as one who believes in this freedom and who has been privileged to participate. I have been an active member of the Methodist Church for 32 years. I am neither proud nor not proud of that, because religion is not a matter for pride. I am happy to feel that I have freedom of conscience and worship which is unkown in so many other countries.
I underline, in passing, what has not been mentioned since my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) drew attention to it. If an alternative method to this Measure were adopted, if some means were found of reversing the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council taken in 1877, the result would be that the wearing of vestments in the Church of England would be compulsory and not optional or permissive, as is the case under the Measure.
My difficulty is this. I want to ensure that those who want to wear vestments and those who worship in Churches where such is the practice do not expose themselves, however remotely, to a charge of illegality. That at the moment is the charge that could be made. Whether or not it was proceeded with is not relevant to our deliberations. On the other hand, it has been pointed out to me with equal sincerity—this is part of my difficulty and, I believe, part of the difficulty felt by many hon. Members—by those who dislike personally the wearing of vestments and by those who worship in those same churches that, if we pass the Measure, if, as it were, we bless the permission which it enshrines, we shall by that very act be giving impetus to that portion of the Church which likes the wearing of vestments. In short, those who do not wish to wear vestments and those who worship with them will be put in a position weaker


than they now are and will therefore be open to all kinds of proselytisation from the other side.
I fully and immediately admit that this is not more than a fear and an anticipation, but we in the House spend much of our time dealing with the fears and anticipations of many people, at times even our own. That a thing is not a proven fact but is only a fear or an anticipation does not remove it from the ambit of our consideration. Further, it appears from what we have heard tonight that those of whom I am talking represent maybe a minority in the Church of England. Thus it is even more important that we have in mind those rights, because if there is anything sacred to the working of the House of Commons, it is the protection of the views and, above all, of the rights of minorities in various sectors of the community.
The Measure states that there is no doctrinal significance in these vestments. I believe that for the vast majority that is the truth. We must find the narrow passage between, on the one hand, what is the determined view of those people that no doctrinal significance attaches to this and, on the other hand, the apprehension of those who believe that this nevertheless may lead to something more than a mere matter of clothing. In sacred matters of religion, and in some ways in lesser matters of politics, one at one's risk and peril ignores the viewpoint and the sincerely held views of the vast number of people in one form or another who make up our nation.
I again underline that the alternatives to this Measure are that nothing should be brought before the House, or that the complicated process of amending the Acts of Uniformity should be undertaken, or—this is the last and perhaps the most pragmatic alternative—that something should be done about reversing the decision of the Judicial Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said, that would make the wearing of vestments compulsory. I reiterate this, because I do not think that it has been understood by many of the vast body of churchmen. It would then be compulsory to wear these vestments, irrespective of view. I think,

on balance, that that might cause far more hurt than the passing of this Measure tonight.
It has been mentioned already, and I fully endorse what was said, that it is a pity that at this time, when the Christian Churches of the world are themselves striving against materialism and all those things which try to drag them down, and when we in this country, from our own national viewpoint, are working so hard and in such a dedicated manner to bring about Christian unity, that, with the best intentions in the world, there should be this schism, however minor, if it is minor, down the centre of those who belong to the Church of England.
The thought occurs to one, as a thinking person, that if we have had this kind of argument, this kind of thought for these many years in the Church, however well-intentioned it may have been, before this Measure was brought before this great and honourable House tonight, where we are spending hours deciding on something which is a part of the working of the Church, how long, O Lord, how long, shall we be before we really have Christian unity in this nation?

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I want, first, to refer to the speech of the chief objector to the Measure, the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I agree with the first two points that he made. The timing of the Measure is rather unfortunate. It is a great pity that the last thing that this Parliament is being asked to do is to pass a Measure which, as the hon. Members for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) and Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) said, is of immense importance to many thousands of people.
The second point on which I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South is that it is right that persons who are not members of the Church of England should speak on this Measure. I still find it rather abnormal that I should be asked to take a decision about the internal affairs of a Church to which I do not belong, but that is how the law has it, and that, apparently, is how the Church of England wants it. If I am asked to vote, surely I am entitled also to express an opinion?
I do not agree with the third point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. After all, I do not always agree with him. He said that he had no objection to making this an election issue. I think that most of us have, but I am not surprised that he has not, because in the part of the United Kingdom to which he belongs General Elections are usually fought on issues of this kind.
I speak on this matter with some diffidence and trepidation, for the reasons that I have given, but I am in favour of the Measure. First, because so far I have not heard one good argument against it. I have listened to all the speeches, with the exception of about ten minutes of the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and I have read with care the report of the recent debate in the other place on this Measure.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), I was astonished to read that a noble Earl said that this was the greatest piece of appeasement since Munich. After all, one can think of several other events which have taken place in the world in the last 25 years, rather more catastrophic than the passing of a resolution by the Church Assembly asking for permission for pastors to continue to do what they have been doing for many years.
The same noble Earl in his objections to this Measure brought into question the Protestantism of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I mention this point to show, with due respect, that much of the opposition to this Measure seems to be so preposterous as to be slightly comical.
Among the other comic things about it is the argument mentioned again by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking that this indicates a drift towards Rome. Anyone who believes that knows very little about the Church of Rome. The difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England has very little to do with chasubles and copes, albs and amices, and maniples and stoles. The differences between the Church of England and the Church of Rome are very profound and are to do with doctrine and theology, and not even so much moral theology as dogmatic theology, and these differences will not

be solved by passing resolutions in the Church Assembly. They will not be solved by Parliament, because Parliament, thank God, although perhaps having to deal with Canon Law, or rubrics, or jurisdiction, has nothing to do with theology, and has no right to do so. To talk about this as being a drift towards Rome simply does not make sense.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there are other reasons. He mentioned other churches which are not in communion with Rome, but which use these vestments. One reason why I am in favour of the Measure is that there is nothing new about it. There is no innovation here—nothing revolutionary. What we are asked to do is to give permission to Anglican Ministers to do what most of them are already doing, and to make legal a practice which has been going on for many years in most English parishes, at least. In fact, we are putting these reverend gentlemen within the law.

Mr. Maginnis: I appreciate the hon. Member's Irish exegesis, but if he wished to drive to the House of Commons every day on the wrong side of the road, would he ask a policeman to change the law for him?

Mr. Delargy: What an extraordinary interruption! How it is relevant to the Vestures of Ministers Measure I do not know. I do not drive on either side of the road, because I do not drive a car. I was saying, before I was interrupted, that we are not asking Parliament to innovate something. We are asking it to recognise something which is already taking place.
The final reason why I think it proper to vote in favour of the Measure is that the Church Assembly is in favour of it. It has been said that the Church Assembly is not representative of the Church of England. I do not know about that. I imagine that it is rather more representative of the Church of England than this House is, to start with. If it is slightly or largely unrepresentative—and again, I do not know, and cannot speak with authority on this matter—it is the only assembly of the Church of England with whom we can talk. Its members are the only persons who can speak to Parliament about the Church of England. They are the only


persons to whom we can listen, because they are the only persons who can speak for the Church.
The hon. Member for Bebington or the hon. Member for Dover said that the Church Assembly has given years of consideration to this matter. In that case, as a member of the Church of Rome, it is my humble duty to take notice of what the Church Assembly has said after deliberating the matter for years.

9.13 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black: If the debate on this Measure illustrates anything it surely illustrates the unsuitability of the present arrangements under which this House has to be the judge of matters on which it is not competent to judge. I cannot think of an assembly less suited to be a judge of matters of this kind than the House of Commons. As Members, we are being asked to undertake a task for which the great majority of us at any rate have no real competence.
What is the position of hon. Members in this matter? We have been receiving circulars and counter-circulars in our constituencies. We are told, on the one hand, by people who have the appearance of being competent churchmen, that if we pass this Measure we are voting in favour of a breach of the Reformation principle and a move towards Rome, and we receive communications, on the other hand, from apparently equally competent churchmen telling us that exactly the opposite is the truth.
We are being asked now to form a judgment on the Tightness or wrongness of these respective positions. If I have any understanding of the matter at all it is that the Reformation was concerned with issues very much more important than those with which this Measure seeks to deal.
I am not a theologian, and as far as I am aware that is the position of, at any rate, nearly all my colleagues in this House. I am therefore not competent to make a judgment on these matters from that standpoint, and all I can hope to do when a task is given to me that I am manifestly unqualified to perform is to try to do the best I can, and exercise the judgment of the ordinary man on what appear to me to be principles of ordinary common sense, and on that basis to decide

what I should do if I am called upon to vote.
As I see the matter, I have on the one hand to try to assess what good, if any, will be done if this Measure is passed, and, on the other hand, what harm will be done if it is passed—because, like most Measures, this one, if passed, will probably do some good and some harm. I have to try to judge on which side the advantage lies.
The sponsors have pitched their case deliberately low. They have tried to commend the Measure to the House by representing it as something small and relatively unimportant. For instance, it has been suggested that no new doctrinal principle is enshrined in the Measure, that it contains no special theological significance. Above all, we are told that it involves no change in the faith of the Church of England. Again, these are matters on which I am singularly unqualified to form a judgment.
As a Member of the House of Commons, therefore, I have to consider on which side the balance of advantage lies, and it seems to me that inasmuch as it has been pointed out and has not been contradicted that whether or not this Measure is carried nothing is involved in the way of the practical day-to-day practice of the Church, because these vestments have for many years past been worn regularly in literally thousands of churches. We are merely being asked to legalise or regularise a situation that is at present, as I understand it, probably illegal and probably irregular; and therefore, as it were, to give a kind of aura of respectability to something that has been going on for many years, and to which, as far as I am aware, no very great objection has been taken. That is the sum total of the good that will be accomplished if the Measure is passed.
On the other side of the account, I believe that by passing this Measure there will be at least three very considerable losses against which the possible benefits count as little in the balance. First of all, as has already been said, the Measure, if passed, will be hurtful to the consciences of many humble and sincere Christian people in the Church of England and in other Churches.
This House has always been the upholder of conscientious principles and


particularly conscientious principles held by minorities, and therefore it has a great duty on this occasion to consider whether we should take a step that is hurtful to the consciences of many of our fellow-Christians.
I know that some people who do not accept this argument will brush aside the objections of these people. They will say that the objectors are comparatively few, that they are a small body of unenlightened and reactionary people to whose views no particular attention should be paid. I am inclined to think that the numbers of these people are considerably greater than is generally recognised, and I am not inclined to brush away lightly the sincerity of purpose of these people and the contribution which they make to the churches and chapels of our land. It is right for us in the House to be very careful before we impose a Measure on the country which will not only be distasteful but hurtful to the consciences of many of our fellow-Christians.
It is perhaps significant that up to the moment, as far as I am aware, and I have heard nearly every speech, no appeal has been made to the teaching of the Bible in this matter, although I believe that the Bible has a conclusive word to say about the principle with which we are concerned. Students of the Scriptures will be familiar with what the Apostle Paul had to say in the 14th Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans about the consideration that should be extended to the weaker brother. The advice which he gave in that passage was advice that arose out of a particular controversy in the Church at Rome regarding the problem of whether it was right or wrong to eat meat in certain circumstances, but what he said had a general application which went very far beyond the particular limited controversy to which it related, and in my judgment it enshrined advice in this matter to which we should do well to pay regard.
I should like to read to the House just a few verses from that passage, from the Phillips translation in Modern English. In order that we may appreciate the applicability of it to the subject which we are considering this evening, I want to substitute the words "wearing of vestments" for "the eating of meat" and I think that the House will see then how entirely relevant this is. This is what

the Apostle said. [AN HON. MEMBER: "As amended."] I ask hon. Members to pay serious regard to what I am quoting because this is not a passage dealing with one isolated controversial matter. It deals with the great general principle of what should be the treatment of the minority in the Church who disagree with the majority.
As amended, this is how the passage reads:
I am convinced, and I say this as in the presence of Christ Himself that nothing is intrinsically unholy. But nonetheless it is unholy to the man who thinks it is. If your habit of wearing vestments seriously upsets your brother, you are no longer living in love towards him. And surely you would'n't let vestments mean ruin to a man for whom Christ died. You mustn't let something that is all right for you look. like an evil practice to somebody else. After all, the Kingdom of Heaven is not a matter of whether you wear vestments you like, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. If you put these things first in serving Christ you will please God and are not likely to offend men. So let us concentrate on the things which make for harmony, and on the growth of one another's character. Surely we shouldn't wish to undo God's work for the sake of the wearing of a vestment.
I suggest that is a perfectly fair use and interpretation of that passage, and that it enshrines perhaps a great deal more wisdom in our approach to this matter than has been shown in some of the speeches this evening.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: As my hon. Friend a few minutes ago agreed that if this Measure were to be refused consent by this House, the people who at present wear vestments would go on wearing them, will he not agree that the whole of his last passage, including the interpolation of words, is really a suggestion that the law should be enforced and that those who wear vestments should stop wearing them, rather than a suggestion that that which is illegal should be made legal?

Sir C. Black: Certainly I accept most of what my hon. Friend says. I hold the view that, while the law of the land is at it is, it should be enforced and observed. There is nothing inconsistent with that belief in what I am saying this evening.
The first of the three points that I want to make, therefore, is that this is hurtful to the consciences of multitudes of weaker brethren who are none the less


entitled to have their feelings in this matter taken into consideration by this House.

Mr. John Biffen: Could my hon. Friend tell us if there is anything in the Measure which obliges people to go to services or priests to wear vestments if they do not wish to do so?

Sir C. Black: Of course, this Measure does not oblige people to go to services, but is it not a pity that people should be kept away from services who might otherwise go, by reason of something of this kind which is largely irrelevant to the purpose of the Church? Let us try to promote unity and make it possible for people who wish to do so to go to church, rather than to impose by law conditions which are so distasteful to many people as to keep them away.
The second point that I want to make is that this Measure does nothing to promote the reunion of the churches, about which some of us are so anxious. We know that at present there have been long-drawn-out and fruitful discussions between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. We accept that the Church of England is sincere in its desire to see a reunion with Methodism, and the Church of England has made it quite clear that this reunion with Methodism is conceived on its side as a first step towards the reunion of the Church of England with the other Free Church bodies.
I happen to have been nurtured in Nonconformity, and I have spent most of my life in Nonconformity. I think I can claim to have some knowledge of the views and the beliefs of my fellow Nonconformists. Without exaggerating the position, I would certainly say—and I doubt whether anyone would deny it—that the passing of this Measure certainly does nothing to make easier the reunion between the Church of England and the Free Churches but it does, in fact, unquestionably put back the hands of the clock so far as the movement towards reunion is concerned.
I cannot think that at a time when the great prize of Christian reunion seems to be nearer to us than at any other time in the last 100 years, it is useful or wise to promote a Measure in this House that is quite clearly damaging to the cause of reunion.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: One of my Methodist friends tells me that his attitude as a Methodist is completely opposite to the one my hon. Friend is advancing—that Methodists would very much resent it if the Church of England were not master in its own house and would not, for that reason, be prepared to join.

Sir C. Black: I am quite sure that, just as there are diverse views on this matter inside the Church of England, there are diverse views about it in Nonconformity. We have in the House an hon. Member who is a former vice-president of the Methodist Conference, and I think that, if he were later able to catch the eye of the Chair, he would probably confirm as correct my assessment of the reaction of the great body of Nonconformists in regard to this matter.
I come now to my third point. The introduction of this and other similar Measures is creating a false image of the Church in the minds and hearts of the great mass of ordinary people in this country, because they regard legislation of this kind as irrelevant to the present world situation which confronts the Church. We are living in a time when nine-tenths of the people of this country are not actively associated with any Church and, as far as we can judge, are singularly unconcerned in the work and ministry of the Church. Those nine people out of 10 who are outside the Church are not, for the most part, hostile towards it. On the whole, they are glad that the Church is there so that its ministrations can be called upon when necessary, but they regard the Church as an anachronism, as largely irrelevant to the world situation, as something which is confined to ecclesiastical buildings with stained glass windows, as an organisation which is very largely concerned with what one might call the things on the periphery of the Christian religion such as vestments and matters of that kind.
When the archbishops and the bishops and the higher government of the Church spend months and years of their time considering the promotion of legislation of this character, and when Members of this House are called upon to turn aside from the great problems with which they have to deal in order to act as judges in a matter for which


they have no competence at all, we can understand the attitude of the man in the street if he feels that the Church has very little to say to him on the problems of the nation and the world because it is so much concerned with the minutiae of its own government and with problems which are in no way the concern of ordinary people.
If we pass this Measure tonight, will one sinner be turned from the error of his; ways? Will one more worshipper be present in our churches next Sunday, churches which, unfortunately, are half empty or worse in many cases? Will the flowing tide of lower moral standards in this country be stemmed as a result? Will one hungry person in the hungry third of the world be fed as a result of these vestments being legalised? These are the concerns to which the Church ought to be addressing itself. These an; the things on which the Church ought to be spending its time, thought, effort and resources. This Measure is not of the stuff of which Christianity is made.
I hope that, in the strength of my feeling on this subject, I have said nothing that has wounded any of my Christian friends who, I know, hold another view.
I have for years taken a very active part in the ecumenical movement and I rejoice in the greatly improved state of church relations in this country. It would have been much easier and more pleasant for me to absent myself tonight from this debate and to have left the matter to be decided by other people, because I hate to be in controversy with those whom I regard as Christian brethren and whom I hold in high esteem. But I came to the conclusion that to have taken that course would have been an act of moral cowardice on my part. Holding the views that I did, I felt constrained to come here and to state them tonight.
I have endeavoured to state the truth as I see it in love, and I feel that, with a church faced today by a largely hostile and certainly indifferent world, a church which has the whole world as its parish, as John Wesley declared so long ago, confronted with a task that is immense and a time that may be decisive in the whole Christian history of mankind, it is

a pity that we have to spend our time on something that matters so little one way or the other.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I am afraid that I cannot share entirely the approach apparently made to this subject by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). Although to people like myself who are non-Anglican churchmen this may seem to be a matter dealing with trivialities, I am sure that it is nothing of the kind. It is a matter of great concern to the Church of England, and, that being so, I think that we should treat it with much greater sympathy than the hon. Member did. Although he declared toward the end his desire to speak in love and charity, I submit to him that he was not altogether charitable in dealing with a matter of very great concern to another church than his own.
I appreciate that this matter has to Anglican churchmen a great importance. At the same time, I must confess that in speaking of it I have a feeling of almost indecent embarrassment, as if I were being involved in a domestic dissension in the house of my neighbour next door, and should not be here. That serves to underline the implicit plea which many have made tonight, that the sooner the Church of England can be perfectly free to discuss these important matters and to decide them for itself the better it will be for the Church and ourselves. I say that in no spirit of hostility, because I hope that I have already indicated that I do not believe that this is a trivial matter.

Mr. John Page: The last five speakers have not been from the Church of England, and it would be helpful to some members of the Church of England who wish to speak if those who felt embarrassed by being involved remained in their places and did not endeavour to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The selection of who shall speak rests neither with the hon. Member who then rose or the hon. Member who was interrupted.

Mr. Sorensen: We have been told more than once tonight that we have an obligation to be here, whatever faith we may profess, and I am here because of that obligation. It is quite true that a large number of people, to use a somewhat fading colloquialism, "could not care


less". I suppose that little more than 5 per cent. of my constituents are members of any of the Churches—Anglican, Free or Roman. Possibly a good number of hon. Members are in the same category. It may be that they have pleaded as an excuse for not being here that this is not a matter for them to decide. Be that as it may, those of us who are here are here because we are concerned about this Measure. I want to express why I am concerned and why I most certainly warmly support the Measure.
First, as a non-Anglican, I still have the obligation, as objectively as possible, to find out what is in the best interests of the Church of England. Whether we like it or not, it is at the moment a State Church. We are involved in it, even though we may not be individual members of it. From that standpoint, I honestly believe that the best service that one can render to this ancient and venerable church is to respect the fact that it claims to be a comprehensive Church. It is a Church which contains within it many schools of thought and many varieties of interpretation.
When the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) referred to St. Paul, he should know that it is possible to interpret St. Paul in a variety of ways. One must remember the well-known sentence in the "Merchant of Venice" to the effect that the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. That is constantly being done. I assure the hon. Member that I am not identifying him with that particular person.
This is surely the unique character of the Anglican Church. It ciaims that it contains within itself real catholicity of outlook, emphasis and interpretation. As one who has done some meagre and amateur reading of church history, I would say that there was not a complete break between the pre-Reformation Church when the Reformation took place. There were elements of the old Church that go back to the very beginning and continue past Reformation days and are even endorsed by those who now call themselves Evangelicals. I know that those who went to the furthermost extreme when they broke away from the Church of England, came to a position where they felt that they must eliminate all kinds of ritual, colour and symbolism, these being an affront, as they thought, to

the full understanding of the divine presence.
The Quakers went most logically to the full extreme by eliminating everything and meeting simply in bareness, austerity and silence, although in course of time they developed a kind of negative ritualism. Short of that, we must appreciate that inside the Anglican Church and outside it in the Free Churches, there are today many practices that belong to pre-Reformation days. If a church has candles on the altar, to some that seems to be symbolic of wicked Babylon and all that goes with it. Others take this as being a legitimate means by which, symbolically, worship is enriched.
All I am trying to do hurriedly, because I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak, is to emphasise that certainly, as an outsider, I see in the Anglican Church both the Catholic and the Evangelical interpretation. Both have their case. Both can cite Scripture for their purpose. Both also cite history and appeal to the depths of human nature.
For my part, I believe that all the senses of man must be involved in acts of worship. That being so, colour, pageantry, drama, symbolism and ritual all have their place. If, however, there are people who are not of that view, one can understnad their viewpoint. I again say that it is surely one of the alleged glories of the Church of England that it can include within its orbit those on both extremes, the Evangelical, on the one hand, and the Anglo-Catholic, on the other hand.
That being so, what have I to do who want to deal charitably with this church to which I do not belong? Surely, the only thing I can do, and the only thing that hon. Members can do, is to say that there should, if possible, be opportunity for both schools of thought and for both interpretations. There is today, compared with former years, much greater tolerant charity within the Church of England and, indeed, between the Church of England and other Churches. There has been a certain easing of tension. There has been a diminution of rigidity, certainly in matters of doctrine. Tremendous changes have taken place. Nowadays, there are very few people who speak as they used to do about what, I think, is the hideous doctrine of eternal damnation. Nowadays, Church


members can recite the Athanasian Creed and apparently not mean what the original authors meant it to mean. Few people now believe that if we do net believe unfeignedly, we shall perish everlastingly.
If there has been that liberalisation regarding doctrine, if there has been in other matters liberalisation in the Church of England since those days 50 years ago when Anglican bishops could condemn family planning, but now support and even extol it, surely we should support this Measure of liberalisation in vestments. I would urge hon. Members, especially those who are not members of the Church of Engiand, to be generous, and to see that in and through this Church, even though many of us do not belong to it, there are elements of great value and that so long as the precious spirit of free catholicity and charity is preserved her people should be free to choose their divergent forms of worship.
There are those who have written to some of us declaring that this Measure is a sign of a subtle drift towards Rome. They are those whom I would call, without offence, I hope, the ultra-Protestants, who see in this the beginning of the legalisation of something sinister that has been going on all the time. I do not believe that at all. It is that sort of people who, if they came lobbying us in the Central Lobby of the House of Commons, ought to be shocked when we look up to see the four Patron Saints beaming down upon us—though St. Patrick has not apparently done his full duty, because most of Ireland has been lost to us—

Mr. Maginnis: The Patron Saint of Ireland has been mentioned by the hon. Member, who will recall that had it not been for the Patron Saint of Ireland very large areas of this country would not have been civilised.

Mr. Sorensen: I am so sorry, but I cannot quite interpret what the hon. Member said. I should be most pleased to see him afterwards and discuss the matter with him. I am so sorry, I mean no offence, but I did not quite catch what he said.
I say again that it would be the ultra-Protestants who might object to seeing the four Patron Saints beaming down on

us in the Central Lobby. No, on the contrary, we are a Protestant country, and we shall remain a Protestant country so long as we believe in the spirit of free thought and free expression. There are very complex difficulties not only in this respect, but in other contexts as well, on the one hand, the principles of authority, and, on the other, the principles of liberty. Authority can degenerate into tyranny and freedom into licence, but I believe that in and through the Church of England there may be built up a measure of order and a measure of liberty and, this being so, this Measure is, I believe, a step in the right direction.
It will help, I think, to make the Church of England a more honest Church, because before this there was a substantial section of the Church of England performing Anglo-Catholic rites and ceremonies—not necessarily Romanist at all. We have to admit the fact, and if we admit it surely this Measure helps the Church of England to be more honest.
Lastly, I would plead with members of the Church of England, on matter how strongly they may hold either their Evangelical convictions, or Anglo-Catholic convictions, to realise that they belong to one common fellowship. I am reminded, as I speak, of the words, which have come down through the years, of John Ball, the so-called mad priest of Kent. Said he, "Fellowship is life, the lack of fellowship is death." If, in the Church of England, there is true fellowship, with respect for diversity, there will also be abundant charity, and then that Church, by its example, will have much to contribute to our world.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) spoke, quite rightly, about the tolerance which exists between the various Churches in our country today. Earlier, I saw the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) in the Chamber. She is not here now, but seeing her, I was reminded very much of her father whom I heard speak many times in Wales against the Welsh Church, against the Church of England in Wales, in those days, and I could not help feeling that if he were here tonight


he would have echoed many of the sentiments which the hon. Gentleman has just uttered.
One speaks on this occasion very shortly and, I hope, very humbly. It is an interesting and reassuring fact that in this country today there are still a great number of thinking people who are more concerned about the arrangements of our spiritual affairs than of the more material affairs of State. This Measure has raised a great deal of interest in the country, and, indeed, a great deal in my constituency, which is a cathedral city. I have had more letters on this one subject than on any other subject since I have been in this House. I think, therefore, that before voting on this Measure it is natural to wish to set out one's reasons for voting in any particular way.
The first thing I want to say is that we cannot be in any doubt as to what the expressed feelings are of the Church Assembly. I echo the remarks and feelings of another hon. Member who said that, whatever our view of how the Church Assembly is made up, it is the only representative assembly of the Church of England which can give this House any advice whatsoever. I believe that to be a very strong point.
I say straight away that I have never accepted that vestments have any doctrinal significance whatsoever. Also, I do not believe that the passing of this Measure showed any tendency towards a drift towards Rome. If I thought that, I should not be voting for it tonight. We know that in more than 80 per cent. of the churches various vestments are worn and that these, although seldom objected to by parishioners, are being worn illegally. The Church Assembly has shown by considerable majorities that it is asking Parliament to make the wearing of these vestments legal. There has already been considerable debate in the Church Assembly itself, and. for that matter, in another place.
The major issue that we have to decide tonight is whether this House is to deny to the Church of England and the Church Assembly what they have asked us to legislate upon. Are we to be deaf to what they ask for? I would only say that the arguments tonight have, in my opinion, strengthened my views

upon this. Certainly, there are many who have been anxious, and that has been clear to us from the number of people who have spoken and who have written to us in our constituencies. I do not think that anybody could vote for this Measure tonight unless he had given it deep thought, and I have done that. I will not keep the House any longer, except to thank it for allowing me to say these few words.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot), who adduced a number of reasons why the Measure should be brought in and laid before Parliament in this form and at this time, and I should like to deal with them.
First, my hon. Friend said that it would be wrong for the Church of England, which is, of course, the Established Church of this part of the United Kingdom, to submit to Parliament the various proposals which it has in mind all together because that might have led to the rejection of all because of objections to some. That is true, of course, in the sense that if they were put before us in one Church Measure and we disagreed with any part we should have had to reject the whole because we cannot amend a Church Measure.
It is not, of course, a valid reason when one bears in mind that there is no difficulty at all in presenting to Parliament a number of Church Measures, as. indeed, has been done in this present Session, because we are debating tonight one of two Measures which have been laid before Parliament in this way. We are, apparently, not to debate in this present Parliament the other one, which was published at the same time and, I think, laid before Parliament at the same time as this one.
It would have been much fairer to Parliament and more desirable in the public interest if all these proposals had been gathered together and laid before Parliament in a number of instruments—probably about six or perhaps fewer—so that we could see the whole picture of what is proposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Those dealing with Holy Communion?"] Someone said those


dealing with Holy Communion, but I do not want to particularise unduly.
We should see what the Church of England is putting before Parliament to approve. It is difficult for Parliament to judge the shape of things being undertaken when these things come before us seriatim and we are given smooth assurances as to the character of them. I object to the piecemeal approach. It puts us in a very difficult position. We have a responsibility in Parliament to consider these matters. We are not normally skilled theologians and the putting together of these individual things to get a clear picture is hard for us.
The second point is that my hon. Friend said it was right to put this Measure before the House now because otherwise it would become an election issue. I cannot think that when, in his own words, the bishops have been considering this matter for a number of years, it is right that this House tonight, on almost the last working day of this Parliament, should be asked to consider it in a few hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members ask, why not? Why was it necessary for the bishops to consider it over a period of years if the matter can be fully considered and decided within a few hours?
This is a very big matter. I have been busy with other matters in the past week. I cannot think that hon. Members on either side of the House have not had other matters to claim their attention. I say frankly to the House that when a subject like this comes forward I have to read it up. I do not know all these things; they are not ready on my lips and familiar to my mind. One needs time to look them up, think about them, and discuss them with other people. We have not had that opportunity and we shall not have a very good opportunity for debate tonight. A great many hon. Members will have gone away for their holidays. It would not surprise me if, during the course of the debate, some hon. Members from either side of the House were, in fact, doing just that. This Measure is brought forward on virtually the last working day of this Parliament and we have to decide it.
I invite the House to consider the nature of this operation. This has not to be seen in isolation. This is a very long story. This battle over vestments has gone on intermittently for some hundreds of years. We all know what happened at the time of the Reformation. Many of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church were abandoned in this country. These vestments were among those which were progressively abandoned during the sixteenth century. Everyone knows that to be true.

Sir Peter Agnew: That statement is open to grave doubt. In fact, the most authoritative body to pronounce on this matter was the last Royal Commission on the subject, the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, which reported in 1906. It said, in paragraph 92 of the Report:
It is not open to question that the Eucharistic vestments were retained in the Church of England after the repudiation of the Roman doctrine and the substitution of the Prayer Book for the Roman service.
On the establishment of Queen Elizabeth's Prayer Book, in 1559, these vestments were by the Act of Uniformity, in clear terms, again directed to be worn.
The Royal Commission reported unanimously.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend has rather encouraged me to feel that I shall give way to him a little more reluctantly in future if he proposes to make his speeches in the middle of mine. I do not mind interventions, but if he wants to refute my arguments he should wait until he can catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if he has not now been deemed to have exhausted his right to speak. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend in his intervention and I will deal with it later. I will not avoid the issue if he thinks that my statement is open to doubt, but I will proceed now on the assumption that what I say is correct. I will justify it later.
Vestments went out progressively during the sixteenth century and were not used in England until the Oxford Movement of the nineteenth century. When the Oxford Movement asserted itself, vestments became a highly controversial matter. Many petitions were addressed to both Houses of Parliament. The subject of the wearing of vestments in Anglican churches became a matter of


fierce controversy and Parliament appointed a Royal Commission in 1867 which considered the whole matter and reported as follows—and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) to listen to this:
We find that whilst these Vestments"—
it was referring to the ones we are discussing—
are regarded by some witnesses as symbolical of Doctrine, and by others as a distinctive Vesture whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion as the highest act of Christian Worship, they are by none regarded as essential, and they give grave offence to many.
We are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the United Church of England and Ireland all variations in respect of Vesture from that which has been the established usage of the said United Church, and we think that this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress.
We are not yet prepared to recommend to Your Majesty the best mode of giving effect to these conclusions, with a view at once to secure the objects proposed and to promote the peace of the Church; but we have thought it our duty in a matter to which great interest is attached not to delay communication to Your Majesty of the results at which we have arrived.
Parliament passed into law the Public Worship (Regulation) Act, 1874, which made it an offence to wear these vestments and gave to aggrieved parishioners a remedy against the wearing of them.
It seems that some hon. Members of the High Church faction are at present having a private meeting of their own. I hope that I shall be listened to with as much attention as speakers with whom those hon. Members happen to agree. When that Act was passed, it seemed that the controversy of the vestments had been resolved for all time. What happened? In the Act the bishops were given the power to veto any prosecution, and after a very few years the bishops vetoed every prosecution.

Sir P. Agnew: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is one of the supporters of the Measure. In considering the Measure, which leaves the final power of direction in the hands of the bishops, let us remember what the bishops did with the Public Worship (Regulation) Act, 1874. They turned it into a dead letter, because without their

consent it could not be operated, and last year—I do not know whether the House knows this—that Act was repealed by an entry in a repeal Schedule to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act. I rather doubt whether most hon. Members knew that they were repealing that Act. That is the way these things are managed. It is necessary to look carefully through the Schedules to see what happens.
That is the background to the controversy. Once the 1874 Act had been rendered nugatory by the bishops, the practices it was designed to suppress proliferated and became what they are today. This evening my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) introduced the Measure as something to bring practice and law into conformity. There are two ways of bringing practice and law into conformity. One is to bring practice into conformity with the existing law. It is not necessary to change the law. Ever since the early nineteenth century the hierarchy of the Church of England has been seeking to reverse the effect of the Reformation in the matter of vestments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South challenged me on that just now. I refer my hon. Friend to the question of the alb, which is one of the vestments which the House is asked to approve tonight. This is what the Eleventh Edition—the last British edition—of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" says about the alb:
In England at the Reformation the alb went out of use with the other Mass vestments and remained out of use in the Church of England until the ritual revival of the nineteenth century. It is now worn in a considerable number of churches not only by the clergy but by acolytes and servers at the Communion.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, who, after all, interrupted me on this point, will at least have the courtesy to listen to my answer.

Sir P. Agnew: One of my hon. Friends asked me what an alb was. I was explaining.

Mr. Bell: I am not a bit surprised. My hon. Friend who asked my hon. Friend that question is one who proposes to vote for the Measure. A good deal of that will go on tonight. Some hon. members do not know what some of


these things are. This is what the alb is:
Where the ritual as in most cases is a revival of pre-Reformation uses and not modelled on that of modern Rome, these albs are frequently apparent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South will know what that means, but in case the hon. Friend who asked him does not, may I say that an alb is a white garment. In the Roman Church the alb is reckoned as one of the vestments proper to the sacrifice of the Mass. The sacrifice of the Mass is the eucharistic celebration regarded as the propitiatory offering of the body and blood of Christ in memory of the sacrifice offered by him at his Crucifixion. It is a distinctly Roman doctrine, and one that is rejected by all members of the Church.
The alb is the vestment which is symbolic of the sacrifice and conception of the Eucharistic celebration. It is a white vesture, symbolic of purity, and the apparels on the alb represent the wounds of Christ. Hon. Members will remember that I read that in the churches which adopted the ritualistic revival of the 19th century the alb was universally worn with apparels. It is therefore impossible for anyone to say that the use of this vestment is devoid of doctrinal significance.

Mr. Gilbert Loagden: It may be impossible, but that is what the Church has said. Is my hon. Friend arguing that to bring the practice into conformity with the law the Church should prosecute 90 per cent. of those incumbents who are wearing these illegal vestments?

Mr. Bell: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's question, but I think that it is better to make one's speech in order. I shall not leave out all these points. I am making the point that the alb is a doctrinal garment, and has always been so regarded.
I wonder whether many hon. Members really know the difference between a surplice and an alb. The alb up to now has been illegal. They are so similar that the inexpert would not detect the difference, and if that is so, why is there such insistence on the legalisation and wearing of the alb? It is only because of the doctrinal significance of the alb, which is wholly absent from the surplice.
There is the historical difference. The surplice, which to most laymen is not easily distinguishable from the alb, has no doctrinal significance. The alb has, and that is why permission to wear it is being sought in this Measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) invited me to look at the Measure. The preamble says:
Whereas the Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture…
I pause there and ask what is the significance of the word, "particular" here? It can only be that the Church of England attaches doctrinal significance, but not particular significance—whatever that means—to the wearing of these vestments. It goes on to say:
And whereas a vesture worn by a Minister in accordance with the provisions of this Measure is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those now contained in the formularies of the Church of England ".
Then follows the body of the Measure.
I ask hon. Members to consider—[Interruption.]—it is extremely difficult, Mr. Speaker, to develop an argument if a hostile conversation continues all round me.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member shall have every protection, but at this range I cannot distinguish whether the conversation is benevolent or hostile.

Mr. Bell: It is easier at short range, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the House to consider the terms of the Measure. The most effective of the arguments in favour of the Measure have been those based on the ground of tolerance. Hon. Members have said that there should be freedom for both sides. Some like it one way and some like it another. The hon. Member for Dover put it in rather more formal language; he described the Measure as being not mandatory but permissive. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) said that there were two wings in the Anglican Church, and that each should have its way. I ask the House to look at the Measure. It is not permissive; it is mandatory. Article 1(a) says:
At Morning and Evening Prayer the Minister shall "—
not "may"—
wear a cassock, a surplice and a scarf…".


It says that the minister "shall" wear it. It is mandatory. Paragraph (b) says:
At the Holy Communion the Celebrant, as also the Gospeller and the Epistoler, and at Public Baptism the Minister, shall wear with the cassock "—
not "may wear"—
either a surplice with scarf or stole, or a surplice or alb with stole…
and so on. He shall wear one or the other. The alternatives are mandatory.
Paragraph (a) is quite simple. It is a mandatory requirement that a cassock, a surlice and a scarf shall be worn for morning and evening prayer. Paragraph (b) is mandatory, with an alternative. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are optional, the first one providing that
A Minister may at his discretion wear a cope on any appropriate occasion 
and the second providing that
When a scarf is worn the Minister, if so entitled, may also wear a hood.
It may be said that that is subject to the second Article, but the second Article says that the Minister shall not change the form of vesture in use in the church or chapel
unless he has ascertained by consultation with the Parochial Church Council of the parish that such a change will be acceptable to the Council.
The effect of that is that he cannot change the vesture without the consent of the parochial church council. Observe, however, that that change can be only in one direction, because of the mandatory effect of the first Article. All changes can be only towards the wearing of these new vestments. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes. In a church where the new vestments are already in use, there can be no change to not wearing them. That is the effect of the Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I apologise for not having heard all my hon. Friend's speech, but I have heard the whole of the rest of the debate. I am in support of the Measure, although I am an Evangelical churchman. Many Evangelical clergy are coming out of the colleges at present, and it is possible that one of them may be appointed to a church which previously used these vestments. I appreciate that it can

happen in reverse, and I accept it, but that Evangelical clergyman may persuade his parochial church council not to have the vestments, and to support him as an Evangelical clergyman who does not want these vestments. The Measure permits that.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend has put the matter in a nutshell—this Measure does not permit it. Let us have that clear. If we start with the wearing of these vestments then, in Article 1, we cannot change to the not wearing of them, because the Measure says so—[Interruption.] Article I is mandatory. Article 2 says that notwithstanding Article I the Minister may not change without the consent of the parochial church council, but he cannot change in what I will call a downward direction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the Measure says that he cannot.
That being so, while I quite agree that the Measure protects the position of an existing Low Church parish for the time being, all movement will be towards the wearing of these vestments, because paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article I say that the Minister shall wear those vestments unless he can bring himself under Article 2. In Article 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) are mandatory and (c) and (d) are discretionary. That point must be kept clear in hon. Members' minds, because it is of the utmost importance.
If I am correct in that, it will be seen that this is not a tolerant Measure leaving free development to both sides of the Anglican Church, but one that makes the Evangelical section of the Church of England a constantly diminishing quantity—

Mr. Denzil Freeth: rose—

Mr. Bell: No, I have given way a great deal. A contrary argument can always be developed in a speech following mine, but I think it more desirable that I should put my argument myself.

Mr. K. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Bell: This is a very important point and if it were wished to put forward something that gave equal rights and tolerance to both wings of the Anglican Church it would be perfectly easy to do so. All we have to do


is to legalise by a Measure the wearing of those vestments at present prohibited by law. In other words, we would make paragraph (a) read:
At Morning and Evening Prayer the Minister may wear
and we would make paragraph (b) read:
At the Holy Communion the Celebrant may wear… either a surplice with scarf or stole, or a surplice or alb with stole and cope…
We then make those paragraphs permissive. That would be a way of doing this that would be in consonance with the speeches made. But the word "may" is not used. The word used is "shall"—

Sir J. Arbuthnot: I think that I can help my hon. Friend. He will see that paragraph (b) says that the celebrant
…shall wear with the cassock either a surplice with scarf or stole, or a surplice or alb with stole and cope, or an alb with the customary vestments…
That is to say, there are three options available to him, so that if we start at a high level we can come down and, equally, if we start at a low level we can go up.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend has entirely confirmed the interpretation which I am giving. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes. Article 1(a) is simple. There is one prescription and one only in it, but in 1(b) there are three prescriptions and a choice between any one of them, but the use of one of the three is compulsory. All the three are new. They do not involve the wearing of the present two only legal vestments which are the surplice and the cope. The three alternatives in (b) legalise new vestments.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: No.

Mr. Bell: Yes, because the only two legal vestments under the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are the stole and the cope. The choice in (b) cannot apply to (a) where there is no choice at all. There is only one prescription.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member is quite wrong. He has not read this correctly. One of the three alternatives, all of which he says are new versions, is precisely the one which he says is the only legal one, either a surplice with scarf or stole or a surplice or alb with stole and cope.

Mr. Bell: Let us at least get this clear. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is agreeing with my interpretation, but he is saying that under (b) it does not matter very much because he says that in one of the compulsory alternatives there is no change. If he will look carefully at this again he will see that that is wrong, because the stole at present is not an unaulhorised garment. All the attempts to avoid my interpretation are concentrated on Article 1(b) and nobody can argue that (a) is not exactly as I said, which after all refers to morning and evening prayer. If I am right about (a) I am right about (b).
This Measure is not an instrument of toleration, it is an instrument of victory and defeat. Let us get that clear. It would of course be slow and progressive defeat, but ultimate and unavoidable defeat, and the irregular practice which now exists—I do not know how widespread—will eventually become the conforming practice and anybody who departs from it will be in breach of the law. That is the position.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me that to have a proposal like this come forward at seven o'clock on the last working day of the House of Commons is just not good enough. If my interpretation of the Measure is right—and I would be interested to hear anybody saying that it is wrong on the wording of the document—this is a Measure which the House should not pass. On the surface, it is a compromise which leaves liberty to both sides, but when closely read it is the victory of the Church over the Evangelicals. The Evangelicals in ritual matters, in vestment matters, are doomed to extinction. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] If I am right this is a matter which the House will not wish to support at this time of the evening on this day of the Parliamentary Session.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover to withdraw it and let us consider it in a new Parliament. If I am right, as I believe, let the Measure be brought forward then in permissive form. Nobody then can argue that both wings cannot go on as they wish, but if we put "shall" in Article 1(a) and (b) I do not see how one can argue


the contrary. I am quite sincere about this and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Measure and not ask the House simply to pass it to get rid of it so that we all can go home and start our summer holidays.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I agree with one thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, and that was that the Church of England has been the established Church from Anglo-Saxon times, and that really is the key to this problem. It is not correct that there has ever been one group of people who have had complete doctrinal unity in the Church. The truth of the matter, and the problem, is that there have always been in the Church of England very varied views about these problems. That is a fact that has to be recognised.
I was deeply moved tonight by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). My right hon. Friend has made his last speech in this House, in which for so many years his wisdom and guidance have been available to the House, and I felt that if my right hon. Friend had torn this Measure to shreds, as I have seen him tear other Church Measures to shreds in the past, I would have let him have his farewell exercise. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields tonight guided us in the direction of wisdom, tolerance and democracy, as one would expect him to do.
I was deeply grateful—it has not always been so; we have not often found ourselves in the same Lobby on these matters—that he did tonight give this direct advice to the House that we should accept the fact that this Measure is as near as one can get the proved will of the Church of England. One may say that there are facts about the representative machinery of the Church of England that one does not like and that it is not effective. One may say that one does not like Establishment. On balance, I am in favour of Establishment. I believe that what is to be obtained in the way of learning, wisdom, charity, living together and sharing a Christian life with people of widely different views, is something which the Church of England is offering

the world and it is something which I would be prepared to—

Mr. George Thomas: Is my hon. Friend saying that it is only the Church of England that provides all this opportunity? If that is the basis of his argument for Establishment, it is a very weak ground.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to cross swords with my hon. Friend, but I would remind him that the last heresy trial was not in the Church of England. There would not at the moment be a place for me in the Methodist Church. There is a place for me in the Church of England. There is a place for the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South in the Church of Ireland, and when he is over here we welcome him in Communion.
The point is that part of the sacrifice of having an Established Church which is comprehensive is that these matters have got to be looked at, and rightly so, by a House which is often bored and unsympathetic; but I would ask my hon. Friends to remember that all representative bodies have their weaknesses. We are often told of our weaknesses in this House. We are often told that we are not representative of the people. Some of us hope that this House will be more representative next time it meets than it is at the moment, but that is something which must be left for the future. We know that, with all our weaknesses and defects, we are the best body that can be got together to come to decisions on matters affecting the country. In the same way, the representational machinery of the Church is the best that can be established so far to come to a decision.
It is a little unfortunate that the matters which come to this House are the ones which call for a change of law and, therefore, tend to be the fiddling little things about stone altars and vestures. The fact is that the Church Assembly has discussed hunger and passed resolutions about hunger. It has discussed housing and industrial peace. Convocation has discussed the question of capital punishment, and, if I were not anxious about losing votes tonight, I might say what its decision was about capital punishment. Although what the House has before it tonight is something which calls for a change of law, it is not true that the Church never considers anything but questions of ritual and forms. The


main part of its work is directed to other matters.
We have been told about the inarticulate mass of laymen who suffer because they are unrepresented. My hon. Friends have heard this said before. They have heard about trade unionists who are not properly represented by their shop stewards. They have heard about district committees overruled by annual conferences which are out of touch with general feeling and opinion. But in a democracy one has to have representation, for better or for worse, and one has to make decisions
The question arises whether the parochial church council does its job efficiently. I have presided at meetings of a parochial church council and I have presided at meetings of ward committees of the Labour Party. They have a painful similarity in the way they work. Both are groups of ordinary men and women, not particularly or unusually endowed with wisdom or anything else, but trying to do their job according to their lights. This is true of the whole of the parochial system of the Church of England.
It is not true that the Church ignores the need for greater representation of the laity. For many years, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and I wrestled on a commission to try to improve representation in synodical government and in order to ensure as far as possible that Measures did represent the feelings of the laity. Now, with the hon. Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot), I am engaged in a follow-up on another commission. The Church is making very real efforts to get more lay sensitiveness in the working of its machinery. But decisions must be made. We cannot say that, because we are not perfect, we cannot do anything. We have to act on these matters when they come up.
The House would be a little unrealistic if it were to hold up its hands in pious horror tonight about vestures. The hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) said that it is not our surroundings or the clothes we wear that matter but it is the spirit. I ask you to look at yourself in the mirror. Mr. Speaker. You are dressed by this House in a curious survival of clothing style. You are marched through the Palace of Westminster, and we bow to you as you go. All this might be

regarded as ritualistic superstition, but, of course, we all have our views and interpretations of what it means. Your clothing and your formalities are a symbol of our democratic life in this assembly.
I want a positive approach to this Measure. I do not come on my knees begging the House to say that we ought to tolerate the wearing of vestments. If people want to wear vestments—and a great many priests and laymen find that the wearing of vestments is an expression of their religious life—why should the House stand in the way? This is a question of putting the Church in order, modernising its legislation, bringing its machinery up to date.
Many hon. Members regard the wearing of vestments as a sort of foppery, as though those who wear them are a kind of ecclesiastical "pansy" who likes to dress himself up in fancy clothes. I remind the House, and particularly my hon. Friends, that the men who have stood for this tradition in the Church of England are hardly the kind of people one could call ecclesiastical pansies. They have been men like Charles Gore and Bishop Huddleston who have been prepared to stand up and bear witness against anyone.
The tradition of the Church of England has been one which for years has stood for social justice, for bringing the Church of England up to date in its witness, bringing it into the modern world and making it effective. Why should this be hamstrung by the requirement that, every time the Church wants to do anything to make itself an efficient institution, everything must be subject to the kind of minute analysis that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) gave it?
The speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham, South was the greatest argument in favour of this Measure that we have heard. This is not a question of haggling over the precise significance of an alb and a cope and the rest of it. This is the Church of England, for better or for worse asking for freedom to legislate on matters of its own concern on which by an overwhelming majority bishops, priests and laymen have all in their representative Assembly come to a conclusion that this Measure should be carried out.


Therefore, I urge the House to accept the Measure on those lines.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Keighley): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 36.

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[10.42 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Allason, James
Green, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gurden, Harold
Prentice, R. E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pym, Francis


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Batsford, Brian
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hendry, Forbes
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bitten, John
Hiley, Joseph
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, w.)


Blackburn, F.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rees-Davies W. R. (isle of Thanet)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rhodes, H.


Boston, T. G.
Hocking, Philip N.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Bowles, Frank
Hornby, R. P.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Roots, William


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Braine, Bernard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Bryan, Paul
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Snow, Julian


Buck, Antony
Kimball, Marcus
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Bullard, Denys
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Lambton, Viscount
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Leavey, J. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cary, Sir Robert
instead, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Corfield, F. V.
Longbottom, Charles
Storey, Sir Samuel


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Coulson, Michael
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Talbot, John E.


Craddock. Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taverne, D.


Curran, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Conway)


Delargy, Hugh
Maitland, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Doughty, Charles
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Mapp, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Drayson, G. B.
Marsh, Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Turner, Colin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Errington, Sir Eric
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Finlay, Graeme
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Webster, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mulley, Frederick
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neave, Airey
Willey, Frederick


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford&amp;Stone)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, Denzil
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Peel, John



Goodhart, Philip
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Peyton, John
Mr. Bourne-Arton and




Mr. MacColl.




NOES


Barnett, Guy
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)


Benece, Cyril
Cordle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Currie, G. B. H.
Hannan, William




Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mclnnes, James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hutchison, Michael Clark
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, J, Idwal (Wrexham)
Magginis, John E.
Wigg, George


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Herby, Capt. Henry
Mills, Stratton



Lagden, Godfrey
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.
Captain Orr and Mr. Ronald Bell.

Question put accordingly.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Magiums (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is the first time that a Church Measure has been passed by the House on a Closure, will it be the law of the country?

Mr. Speaker: There is too much noise. I should be greatly obliged if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to

repeat to me what he said. I was unable to hear.

Mr. Maginnis (seated and covered): I said, Mr. Speaker, that as this is the first time that a Church Measure has been passed by the House on a Closure, will it be the law of the country?

Mr. Speaker: It has not passed yet.

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 23.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[10.52 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fletcher, Eric
Loveys, Walter H.


Allason, James
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (stafford&amp;Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Freeth, Denzil
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Barlow, Sir John
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Maddan, Martin


Barter, John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maitland, Sir John


Batsford, Brian
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhart, Philip
Mapp, Charles


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Marsh, Richard


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Boston, T. G.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Bowles, Frank
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morrison, Joan (salisbury)


Bromley-Davertport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mulley, Frederick


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey


Back, Antony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Bullard, Denys
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hendry, Forbes



Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hiley, Joseph
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chataway, Christopher

Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hobson, Rt. Hon Sir John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Corfield, F. V.
Hocking, Philip N.
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Percival, Ian


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hornby, R. P.
Peyton, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Curran, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitt, Dame Edith


Dance, James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Prentice, R. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Prior, J. M. L.


Diamond, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Doughty, Charles
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pym, Francis


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Driberg, Tom
Kimball, Marcus
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
King, Dr. Horace
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leavey, J. A.
Rhodes, H.


Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Litchfield, Capt. John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Roots, William


Finlay, Graeme
Longbottom, Charles
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)




Russell, Sir Ronald
Talbot, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Sharples, Richard
Taverne, D.
Webster, David


Shaw, M.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Short, Edward
Temple, John M.
Wigg, George


Snow, Julian
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Willey, Frederick


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Conway)
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Stevens, Geoffrey
Thorpe, Jeremy
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Stodart, J. A.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Woodnutt, Mark


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Turner, Colin
Worsley, Marcus


Stonehouse, John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Storey, Sir Samuel
van Straubenzee, w. R.



Studholme, Sir Henry
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vickers, Miss Joan
Mr. Bourne-Arton and Mr. MacColl




NOES


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mills, Stratton


Blackburn, F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pounder, Rafton


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cordle, John
Jones, T. W, (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lagden, Godfrey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)



Evans, Albert
McMaster, Stanley R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Maginnis, John E.
Captain Orr and Mr. Ronald Bell.


Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Resolved,
That the Vestures of Ministers Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS MEASURE

11.0 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: I beg to move,
That the Church Commissioners Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the

Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure is not contentious. There are no doctrinal issues in it. It regulates the Committees of the Church Commissioners and also provides for the unfortunate contingency, were it necessary, of a pension for the widows of the two Church Estates Commissioners other than the Parliamentary Church Estates Commissioners.

Question put and agreed to.

CORONER'S INQUEST (WITNESS'S FEE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: I wish to raise a matter concerning Mr. Charles Abbott, a medical herbalist, and the treatment he received from a coroner presiding at the inquest on one of Mr. Abbott's patients, a patient who had been under his care for about 20 years.
Mr. Abbott was requested by the coroner to submit a written statement concerning this lady's death and was summoned to attend the inquest, at the end of which he was offered 25s. by the coroner as an ordinary witness's fee, which—I believe quite properly—was refused by Mr. Abbott.
I wish to point out that neither Mr. Abbott nor I are primarily concerned with the monetary aspect of this matter, particularly as the difference between the 25s. offered and the sum which I think should have been offered has been spent many times over by Mr. Abbott in pursuance of this case. I think that he should have been paid considerably more than he was offered.
Since I believe that the ordinary witness's fee of 25s. was offered by the coroner simply to show his disdain—and I am sure of this—and I regard it as a studied insult, I must inevitably base my case on the fee, for, according to the rules for coroner's fees and allowances, such fees mark the status of the individuals giving evidence.
The rules set down various fees and allowances for various categories of witnesses. There are fees for professional witnesses; there is provision for the expert witness, and presumably the coroner uses his discretion as to the fees payable to these; there are fees for lawyers, for dentists and—rather surprisingly—for veterinary surgeons. There are fees also for ordinary witnesses, for whom the figure is 25s. for the half day. I received a letter from the Joint Under-Secretary of State on 1st November last and I will quote one extract:

These rules draw a distinction between the expert witness and others, and provide for different allowances. The distinction does not turn simply on the qualifications of the witness but rather on the nature of the evidence he gives.
But the answers Mr. Abbott gave to the coroner were strictly related to the questions which the coroner asked, and I wonder whether it is now suggested that Mr. Abbott in his replies ought to have gone completely outside those questions? I think that he would quickly have been ruled out of order.
The witness might have been myself or the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who might have witnessed a road accident which had fatal results. In that case we would have been paid 25s. for our attendance for a half-day, or 50s. for a full day's attendance at an inquest. But by what stretch of the imagination could either the hon. Gentleman or myself in these circumstances be put into the same category as Mr. Abbott, who had had had the medical care of this woman for upwards of 20 years?
What in fact happened at this inquest was that a coroner, who the hon. Gentleman has stressed time and time again is a judicial officer, put Mr. Abbot into the same category of witness as myself or the hon. Gentleman if we had witnessed a fatal road accident. That a coroner should be capable of such distortion seems to me to be disastrous, and something which can only bring disrepute upon the office he holds.
I wish to say a word about Mr. Abbott, and I want to make it clear that it is this case alone which I am discussing. My plea tonight is not for every marketplace quack. I am seeking justice for a man who has devoted the whole of a very long life to the service of healing.
There are thousands of people throughout this country who can bear testimony to that. In the First World War Mr. Abbott's patients petitioned the late Sir Auckland Geddes, Director of Recruiting, 1916–1917, and Director of National Service, 1917–1919, with a view to getting complete exemption from military service for Mr. Abbott. Sir Auckland Geddes took the very exceptional step of receiving a deputation from Mr. Abbott's patients in order to discuss their petition. As a consequence, Mr. Abbott was given complete exemption during


the 1914–1918 war in order to carry on his practice as a medical herbalist.
I want to stress to the hon. Gentleman that this decision by Sir Auckland Geddes was not the emotional decision of a misguided Minister, as one can see from Sir Auckland's background. Indeed his background adds significance to the decision. I should like the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to this particular point, because I do not know whether he is aware of this.
Sir Auckland was formerly Demonstrator and Assistant Professor of Anatomy at Edinburgh University, Professor of Anatomy at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and Professor of Anatomy at the McGill Unversity in Montreal. In view of that, I think that he was better qualified than many other people to judge whether Mr. Abbott would be doing more useful work in the Services, or by attending to his patients. During the Second World War Mr. Abbott was to all intents and purposes treated like a registered practitioner. He was supplied with all the petrol that he needed to go the rounds of his patients.
I am reminded of the case of Sir Herbert Barker who had to meet every form of opposition, scorn, and derision, and yet of whom The Times obituary notice of 22nd July, 1950, said:
He placed the medical profession of this country in his debt in two ways. In the first place he challenged professional complacency by a long series of successful treatments of cases which the doctors had failed to cure.
His second service had the effect of challenging professional skill and so, in the end, of increasing it.
Almost from the beginning Barker had found himself in conflict with the medical profession.… The doctors were not animated by hatred of Barker; they were merely doubtful about his knowledge and distrustful of his skill.
I think that those words could be applied to Mr. Abbott.
The coroner in his summing-up said that Mr. Abbott may be able to treat certain ailments and certain people may have faith, but there is no doctor of my acquaintance who would claim more. Hence the reason why this House is anxious to expand the medical specialist services.
Last week the British Medical Association held its annual meeting in Manchester,

and it attracted quite a lot of publicity. I think that that is generally what conferences are for. Dr. J. E. Struthers, a senior medical officer at the Ministry of Health, addressed the conference. He had headed an investigation into prescribing by some registered practitioners.
The Evening Standard of 22nd July reported:
Dr. Struthers revealed that drugs of no proven value, dummy pills, and harmless fluids given simply to keep the patient's faith going were costing the taxpayer £3 million a year.
The Evening News headed its leader on that night, "Medical Madhouse".
The morning papers also commented on the conference. On 23rd July most of them gave a catalogue of the irresponsible prescribing quoted by Dr. Struthers. These were some of the headlines: The Daily Telegraph said:
A family had 800 purple hearts each day. Lunatic prescriptions.
The Times said:
Family got 800 pills a day. Lunatic fringe prescriptions.
The Guardian said:
800 pep pills a day on the National Health Service.
The Observer of Sunday 26th July said:
Doctors at the British Medical Association Conference were told that £3 million a year were spent on drugs that were of little or no value to the patient, and at least £100,000 on drugs that were positively dangerous or detrimental.
One might well ask at this point: where do we look for the quacks? We need not confine ourselves to the market places any longer, yet had any one of the doctors who so wildly, so dangerously, prescribed for his patients been called on to attend this inquest, he would have been treated with respect and without any shadow of doubt would have been paid the professional fee. Fortunately—and I think that one must say thank heaven—it can be said that such doctors represent only a very small minority. The people who go to Mr. Abbott go to him because they choose to go to him. Every person who goes to him pays for his treatment, yet everyone could get free medical attention almost literally at the corner of his own street. But they all prefer to be treated by Mr. Abbott.
In a world of diminishing freedoms, let us pray that one that shall for ever


remain shall be the freedom of the individual to choose how and by whom his body shall be treated. Coroners are independent judicial officers. But if a coroner allows his personal prejudice to override his sober judgment to the detriment of his decisions and to the detriment of those who appear before him, something must be done about it. I believe that something can be done about it without violating the coroner's Independence. Tonight I have been privileged to say more on Mr. Abbott's behalf than ever he could have said for himself. What I have said I have said only in the cause of justice. I therefore ask the hon. Member to acquaint the coroner of tonight's discussion—after all, it concerns him—and if, in the light of what has been said, the coroner comes to feel that his decision was harsh or even wrong, it lies within his discretion as a judical officer and a gentleman to remedy it.

11.17 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): The debate on the Adjournment at the end of the day's business traditionally provides an occasion for discussing the grievances of individual constituents, and on this last night of the present Session I suppose one could have no more proper subject for debate than a coroner's inquest. This is a particularly appropriate opportunity for discussing the case which has been raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), because his constituent, in whose case I have taken a considerable personal interest, falls into a very rare category of individual, and his grievance arises from the difficulty of applying to him regulations which do not precisely take into account his unusual qualifications.
I should like to say as clearly as I can to the hon. Member that I do not for a moment dispute his constituent's qualifications or ability, of which he has spoken; nor do I question the eminence of those who have expressed confidence in him. Nor would I challenge his strictures of some of the far more doubtful medical practices of those whom I am glad agree with him are a very small minority of the medical profession.
The hon. Member has carefully and thoroughly explained the circumstances

from which his constituent's complaint arises. I know that he will forgive me if I go over some of the same ground again from a slightly different point of view in order to explain why, so far as the Home Secretary is concerned—and I emphasise that qualifying phrase "so far as the Home Secretary is concerned"—it was not possible for the case to have any other outcome.
The circumstances are that early last year a woman died whom the hon. Member's constituent, Mr. Abbott, had treated for many years. He tells me it was for 20 years, and I am sure that that is correct. A post-mortem examination was held and an inquest was ordered. The pathologist who conducted the postmortem asked Mr. Abbott for information on the treatment he had given, and Mr. Abbott readily provided that information. Mr. Abbott further prepared a written statement for the coroner, and also indicated that his attendance at the inquest would involve him in a loss of 10 guineas, and he asked for reimbursement. The inquest took place on the morning of 9th August, 1963, and lasted for 1¼ hours. Mr. Abbott attended the inquest, travelling in all about 20 miles in order to do so. He gave his evidence, as the hon. Member has said, in response to the coroner's questions and, at the end of the inquest, he claimed for his expenses. It is over this claim that the dispute has arisen.
I must now explain that allowances for witnesses at a coroner's inquest are governed by statutory regulations made in 1955. They are precisely the same as those payable for attendance in connection with proceedings at magistrates' courts, and the same considerations apply. The regulations make provision for the payment, where it is appropriate, of subsistence allowances and travelling expenses, and these provisions apply to all witnesses alike. No dispute arises over that part of the regulations.
There is also provision for a payment in respect of attending an inquest, and to calculate the amount of the payment that shall be made the regulations make separate provision for three categories; professional witnesses, expert witnesses, and ordinary witnesses. The professional witnesses are medical practitioners, dentists, or veterinary surgeons and one group which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, members of the legal profession.


They are entitled, for attending to give professional evidence, to eight guineas for a whole day, or four guineas for half a day.
An expert witness who attends to give evidence and for work in connection with its preparation, may be paid an expert witness allowance of such amount as the coroner may consider reasonable, having regard to the nature and difficulty of the case, and the amount of work necessarily involved. Any other witness—that is, an ordinary witness such as the hon. Gentleman or myself—is entitled to 50s. for a whole day, and 25s. for half a day.
When Mr. Abbott made his claim it was clear that he was not a medical practitioner, a member of the legal profession, a dentist or a veterinary surgeon, and he could not, therefore, be paid as a professional witness. The coroner also concluded that he could not be treated as an expert witness, and that he was, therefore, entitled only to the sum of 25s.
Before I say more, and discuss the wider issues which have been raised tonight. I should like to make two points. The first is that the ordinary witness's allowance is not intended to provide full compensation for loss of earnings. If a person has knowledge which is relevant to court proceedings, whether they are related to a criminal charge, or to proceedings in a coroner's court, it is that person's public duty, if summoned, to attend and give evidence. The allowance which may be paid to him for performing that duty is intended to ensure that he should not suffer hardship by so doing. It is payable only if he loses remuneration by having to attend the inquest, and it is not measured by the extent of the loss.
The second point is that the expert witness is not specifically defined in the regulations, and to find out what is an expert witness, we must go to the general law. The law of evidence as a rule allows witnesses to give evidence only about matters of fact within their knowledge, and expressions of opinion are not admissible. However, as an exception, the expert witness may be called upon to give an opinion based on the facts or other matters which he has investigated. Typical examples of expert witnesses are the handwriting expert and the ballistics expert.
The important point to bear in mind is that the expert witness qualifies as such, not only by virtue of his own qualifications, but by virtue of the nature of the evidence which he gives. Accordingly, for a witness to be entitled to an expert witness allowance, two points must be determined. The first is that he must have given evidence of a certain kind. That is a question of fact. The second is that evidence must have been expert evidence. That is a question of law.
Accordingly, this dispute is, in essence, a dispute about the coroner's interpretation of a point of law. I must now emphasise that coroners are independent judicial officers. They are appointed by local authorities but, subject to the requirements of the law, they are autonomous.

Mr. Boardman: I agree with that, but according to the hon. Gentleman's own letter, they have their own discretion in the matter of the expert fee.

Mr. Woodhouse: That is so. They have this discretion, and in this case the coroner concerned exercised the discretion in a way unfavourable to the hon. Member's constituent.
What I have to point out is that nobody can compel the coroner to alter that decision. He cannot be given directions about the way in which he carries out his duties either by the authority appointing him or by the Home Secretary. Like any other judicial officer, he is subject to judicial control but to no other control. If Mr. Abbott considers that he has a real grievance as regards the payment made to him, or offered to him, by the coroner, there are legal remedies open to him to pursue. I do not think that this would be a suitable occasion—and time is very short—for me to attempt to outline his legal remedies, but if he wishes to take that course I have no doubt that the best step for him to start with would be to take legal advice from a solicitor on the correct procedure. But this is not, in any case, a matter in which the Home Secretary can intervene.
The Home Secretary's responsibility in this case—which I have very carefully examined in the light of my correspondence and discussions with the hon.


Gentleman—is determined by two factors. The first is the coroner's judicial independence, which prevents the Home Secretary from issuing any directions about his conduct of his duties, and the second is that a question of the interpretation of the law is involved. Supposing that the Home Secretary's power was not fettered by the coroner's judicial independence, before he could act he would have to make a full investigation of the facts and, having done so, determine the application of the law to those facts. But these are not functions that the Home Secretary can properly exercise. They are the functions of a court.
I am sorry that I can, therefore, offer no help to the hon. Member, who has argued his constituent's case so persuasively. I realise that, as the hon. Member has said, for Mr. Abbott the sum involved is unimportant and that he is concerned with the question of principle and the establishment of his status. The context in which this issue of principle has arisen, however, makes it impossible for the Home Secretary to assist or to intervene in any way.
This does not involve any challenge of Mr. Abbott's status, but is a statement of the law governing the Home Secretary's position and actions. The issue is one that might be determined in the courts, and that would be a matter for Mr. Abbott to take legal advice about, but for the Home Secretary to attempt to determine this question would be a gross violation of the fundamental constitutional principle that the Executive do not intervene in matters that are properly for the judiciary.
With every sympathy, I am afraid that it is impossible for the hon. Member in this case to invoke the Home Secretary's aid for the benefit of his constituent.

Mr. Boardman: I apologise for the omission, but I had intended to express on behalf of Mr. Abbott and myself our appreciation of the way in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the case, with very great sympathy from the beginning. I thank him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.